This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 4
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think it looks great! I like the subheadings. I tweaked one edit and heading. See what you think, but I think it was pretty thorough without shouting too much;) --Dematt 01:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi -- I reverted your deletion of my "unsourced" comment; I had included an online link which can sometimes be easy to overlook. I think it should be included in the article in the interests of NPOV.
You may want to take a look at the article's talk page starting with Brad Patrick's cutting it back to a stub in August. You can also look at the links I included on the article talk page to comments on Brad's talk page, etc.
You'll see I had a hard time getting the article unprotected temporarily to allow expansion from stub status. This is apparently a hot potato article within Wikipedia.
I suggest deleting about half of the stuff you added. Otherwise, it's possible this article will get stubbed back to what I thought was a pro-PWU stub. This is especially likely in light of the school's claim, so far not disputed in the press, that it finds no record Einfield ever received a degree from PWU.
--A. B. 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I have replied to the issue of my mistaken deletion here.
As far as the rest, why would the article be stubbed back because of my additions? Aren't they properly sourced? I use the same source as you do -- The Australian. There are no doubt some issues on this article. Please explain more. -- Fyslee 20:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
To anwer your question (and spare writing a page or two here) I think if you review the talk page, you'll understand my concern, though you may still question whether it's well-founded or not. Also, take a look at the article's history and see the version that existed just prior to Brad's intervention. It was pretty encyclopedic, which raises the question of why it was pruned back so far (including deletion of any mention of PWU's lack of accreditation).
It took many hours of editing and lobbying to get what there was when my draft article text was finally added by JesseW. It's not that I'm asserting ownership here -- just concerned that what's been a ccomplished so far will get undone and sent back to a stub again.--A. B. 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Straight
Thanks for your explanation of "straight" in the context of chiropractors, simply using the word "foundational" in brackets afterwards would explain it.
On another subject, osteopaths also have a technique called "SAT", an abbreviation of Specific Adjustment Technique, developed by a UK osteopath as mentioned here [1] and taught in a school in England [2] - probably not significant enough to warrant an article on its own, but mentioning it as a note in the Spinal adjustment article could change the whole thrust of the argument that use of the word "adjustment" is particular to chiropractic. --apers0n 06:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. If others consistently use the term that way, then it could also be mentioned. There is far more similarity between European osteopathy (alternative woo-woo) and all chiropractic, than between American osteopathy (real doctors) and chiropractic. -- Fyslee 07:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Good cleanup of Osteopathic medicine. --apers0n 13:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Chiropractic has had their own category for a long time, and I have long known that osteopathy needed its own category, so now I decided to do it. If you can add to it please do so, and if I have made any errors, please correct them. -- Fyslee 13:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
How much?
Just curious about your thoughts on what constitutes "significant". Is "one in 500,000" significant? Where do you draw the line? One in a million, ten million? What is your opinion? Cheers. --Hughgr 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. In what context is the word being used? -- Fyslee 20:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You must be thinking of something. The context determines which of many definitions and understandings govern the situation. In scientific research it has one precise meaning, in practical life it has many others. To illustrate...."notability" can be understood in the Wikipedia sense, or in some other sense, maybe related to notoriety. An unknown person with a small "incident" can, by making a big deal out of hiding that little "incident," draw so much attention to themselves that they become notorious and thereby notable (in a negative way!).
Let me know what sense of "significant" you are contemplating. If it's something I have written, then it will be easier to explain, and I will try! -- Fyslee 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I am just curious at what point you personally find something (anything) significant. As you said above, it can have different meanings. Personally, I don't worry about stuff that is unlikely to happen (ie. small chance). If you look at what people (generally) worry about (statistically), it's things that are the least likely to happen. Also, how can someone "hide" a small, insignificant "incident"? Wouldn't it's insignificance mean it has little bearing, thus hiding would be incorrect? Perhaps its more like dismissing the small chance as not worth mentioning. IOW why get worked up over something that isn't likely to happen?--Hughgr 21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hugh, I feel I can speak openly with you. You and Dematt have been cooperative and sought to create a collaborative atmosphere here, and I appreciate that. I assume we are likely talking about the current topic being discussed on the spinal adjustment and joint manipulation articles' talk pages, IOW the risks involved with upper cervical manipulative therapy.
First I'd like you to read some of what I have collected on the subject. [3] The title of the blog entry is rather sensational, but I didn't originate it, and it is linked to from so many places that I can't change it without changing the URL, and that's a big no no on the internet. It came from an Irish television program that was the basis for the beginnings of that entry. It developed larger and larger as I added to it, and I haven't added anything more in a long time, although there is much more. After you have read it, you will hopefully understand my POV better. Then you can ask me more specific questions. I don't like dealing in hypotheticals, since they are all so "if"ish.
My perceptions of this matter have been strongly influenced by many encounters with patients injured by chiropractors, and then further study of the issues. I'm well aware that all professions "injure" patients at times, so I haven't let that weigh too strongly against chiropractic. The thing that is different is the extreme degree of denial I find in the chiropractic literature, discussion groups, and websites. That part is unusual, in contrast to the medical profession and other healthcare professions where injuries are registered, discussed, analyzed, and pro-active measures are taken (often too slowly, but it happens).
Another factor that strongly influences my thinking is the under-reporting problem. It is vast, and denialism only makes it worse. -- Fyslee 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I just was wondering at what point you consider something significant. But if you wish to take it in this direction...have you considered that the incidence of CVA following cSMT occures to the same magnitude as that occuring in the general population? Or that the average DC would have to perfom 30 cSMT's per day (48 wks/yr) for 50 years to see one case of stroke related to cSMT (Triano, J, Kawchuk, G, Current Concepts: Spinal manipulation and Cervical Arterial Incident, NCMIC 2006; Chap 8:56). Your website states that consideration should be taken 30 days (or longer) from the last cSMT??? Have you considered Haldeman's findings, that the majority (70%) of cSMT induced CVA's have immediate symptoms? Or that persons having ongoing symptoms of a dissection would seek the help from a cSMT provider? Why is this info not on your website? It would paint a balanced picture at least. And yet you consider underreporting to be a major problem...wouldn't 30 days lead to overreporting? Lastly, have you considered that the criteria for attributing causation (Bradford-Hill) have NOT been met for cSMT and vascular injury? --Hughgr 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't pretend to do an exhaustive study of the subject. It's just a collection of resources. The reason for the 30 day thing is that even if some minor symptoms occur at the time of the treatment, a clot can buildup and dislodge some days later. There is also the matter of repeated cSMT increasing the risk, IOW repeated small injuries finally resulting in a bloodclot. Overreporting is a virtual impossibility, considering the underreporting rate of known cases found by Ernst, et al. The criteria for attributing causation are obviously incomplete and therefore pretty irrelevant to the proven cases of immediate reactions on the treatment table leading to stroke and/or death. Some are dead, others have lived to tell about it. We're still learning about this problem, and our knowledge is quite incomplete. Gotta run now. -- Fyslee 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
True Believer Syndrome Article
Fyslee, regarding your edits on True-believer syndrome, please provide the referenced material to support your edits. Needless to say, I can't find any referenced material to support your edits as qualifying as examples of "true believer syndrome". If you can reference material that states that believing in crop circles, etc., are examples of "true believer syndrome", then feel free to re-add it with references. Otherwise, you are interpreting the term to suit your POV. SSS108talk-email 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not put that material in the article, I just reverted your POV deletions of excellent examples. If you are a believer in those things, then instead of deleting them, you might be able to learn something from the article. -- Fyslee 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, the response I gave above was in reply to your comment: "then provide the refs, rather than destroy the article". If you think my deletions were POV, you always have the opportunity to reinclude the "excellent examples" with referenced sources. Problem solved. SSS108talk-email 16:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Medicare
After reading the medicare report you left on the SA page, I looked into this. Thought you might be interested.[4] --Dematt 03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like you're right, PT's may also have a problem, or maybe medicare doesn't understand what either of us do. [5]. Don't you think it is interesting the way they put the chiropractic one first even though it wasn't the worst? --Dematt 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Here are the stats of Medicare claim error (which is actually a measure of how much billing mistakes are costing taxpayers):
Chiropractors (11.3%)
Physical therapists (18.2%)
Internists (13.5%)
IOW, PTs have the highest rate or error and this also indicates that they have the highest rate of improper claims filed. Definitely interesting reading. Levine2112 05:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's interesting. I'll try and look into this later. -- Fyslee 06:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm home from work and have a bit of time before my daughter's 14th birthday party for a few girlfriends.
I don't understand exactly how Medicare works since I've been in Denmark the last 23 years. It looks like these physicians ("doctor of medicine, osteopathy, optometry, or podiatric medicine") are screwing up their billing in many ways. Not a good thing. Some is no doubt because of sloppiness or laziness, but some of it looks extremely suspicious. It appears that many different professions can render "physical therapy" services, which I find odd:
Of the 32 physicians we interviewed, 24 told us that their staff render some or all of the physical therapy for which they bill Medicare. According to these physicians, therapy in their offices is rendered by:
podiatrists,
chiropractors,
physical therapists,
physical therapist assistants,
massage therapists, and
physical therapist aides.
Fourteen of the physicians we interviewed reported that they personally render some or all of the therapy for which they bill; however, we could not verify through Medicare claims data what proportion of the physicians’ physical therapy claims were rendered personally by the physician.
I have no doubt that some PTs are unethical, lazy, or just plain incompetent. In other cases they are in the same boat as chiropractors -- differences in interpretation of rules made by an insurance company that is more interested in money than in the patients' well-being. No matter what's going on, it's good that someone is keeping an eye on the taxpayers' money and on who is misusing it. In this case I don't know if one should consider it odd that chiropractic was listed first, although in some cases there could well be some type of hidden agenda on the part of the journalist. All in all, thanks for the information. -- Fyslee 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I think some of it has to do with confusion on what is "well care" or maintenance and what is medically necessary. Depending on your POV, some may actually think that none of it is necessary as the patient is only looking to feel better, so the reviewer considers it palliative or unnecessary. IOWs, the line between acute and chronic and what our society wants to cover is gray and anywhere there is gray, there is potential for a variety of interpretations that most look see through their POV.
This is my wifes B-day, too! Wow, you know your daughter being a Scorpio means she is strong and opinionated! I know my wife is;) Good thing we don't believe that stuff! If she is strong and opinionated I'm sure it comes from her dad! Enjoy your family today and I will too. --Dematt 16:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Congrats with your wife! I'm not sure if my daughter is strong and opinionated, but she sure is a teenager, and that can be bad enough!
I think you're right about the wellness care bit. What makes it a problem (in this situation) is that insurance is involved. (Whoever pays your bills or loans you money owns you.) We have the same problem here. We can have a patient where there may not be objective improvement, but where we know from experience with just that patient, that if they don't continue treatment, they get worse, and get worse fast. Such cases are then caught by insurance and judged unnecessary care. That's life. If the patient pays the bill themselves, then there's no problem. Insurance is a necessary evil, but sometimes it's just plain evil, as far as the patient is concerned. -- Fyslee 17:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yep. We have to just keep going. --Dematt 14:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Good edits
These were good edits that needed to be made, thanks, and you were extremely neutral with them! --Dematt 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I do try. If you ever find any edits that aren't neutral, don't hesitate to notify me. It can happen, so it's good to have friends who see things with different eyes. -- Fyslee 20:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't be editing Acupuncture for awhile due to wikibreak
Hi Fyslee. I've gotta set WP aside for awhile. Bad timing given that acupuncture seems to be getting a bit rowdy, but I can't control circumstances IRL. If the article gets out of hand in the meantime, c'est la vie, but to the extent you're able to keep it on your radar screen, I'm sure it will benefit. all the best, Jim Butler(talk) 22:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
My entrance at Jimbo Wales
(This is regarding repeated and misplaced edits on "molestation" placed here on Nov. 17, 2006. -- PL)
First of all I appreciate your courtesy
But a provider with dynamic IPs is changing the No more often. So you do not stick to one Ip Number the complete day.
Kind regards
Olaf Klenke
I am just asking myself who is taking over responsibility for this matter
Normally it cannot be that German Administrators can accuse anonymous
So the ones who are working with their vizor are the punished ones.
I mean that this a generall problem because by now I am capable to give you a collection of this behaviour.
Is this is the way Mr. Wales wants it ???
I really do not think so
Paul Hartal article
The Paul Hartal article does cite its sources. Take a look at the first two external links and you will see every fact that is in the article has been verified there. Thus I have removed the sources tag you put on the article. Hu 09:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
External links provide more information not included in the article and are not considered as real references:
"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article. These links belong in an External links section near the bottom of the article." - WP:EL
"Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not an external links section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations." [6] (added emphasis - Fyslee)
Since you are (perfectly appropriately) using them as sources for the article, then they should be included as embedded links (with the appropriate quotes, pages, and URLs) and formatted as real references. This has the added advantage of "upgrading" the links to article content rather than mere external links. This eliminates them from the External links and makes room for other external links so that section doesn't get too long.
Right now the article doesn't even have a references section. It is not the duty of readers to search through the contents of external links to verify that the article content is reliable. It is the duty of editors to provide immediately and easily verifiable proof of the reliability of their additions by providing referenced proof right at the spot in the article where it is needed and relevant. -- Fyslee 10:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Olaf Klenke, you have violated Wikipedia's WP:3RR rule repeatedly, and have not shown any signs of being able to learn from the repeated reversions of your improperly added complaints. I suggest you cease immediately. If you have a problem on the German Wikipedia, then take the problem there. This is not the place to deal with it. Wikipedia is for editing, not complaining, which seems to be your only mission at present.
Users with "anonymous IP numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits." -- Jimbo Wales[7]
To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own. -- Fyslee 13:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(My warning above was placed here by 80.142.198.157 14:47, 20 November 2006
Free edits
Thank you
It took me over 1 year to dare writing about this problem.
And as far as I concern it is really necessary to inform Mr. Wales about the blackmailing and molestation accusations which are on purpose put into Wikipedia to get a proper google link to destroy my personal reputation.
Who takes responsibility for this behaviour ????
Kind regards
Olaf Klenke
PS: My Provider offers a dynamic IP
IPs are changing by the system
I am not rebooting my system to get other IP Numbers
What can you do against anonymous administrators who are accusing you in open public.
And by the way this behaviour is settled in DE wiki
They have not heard anything about courtesy at all.
80.142.198.157 14:47, 20 November 2006
I understand the nature of dynamic IPs, so the solution is to get an account, since all of our edits, no matter how many IPs are used, still count as yours and can count against you in a 3RR situation. You should also learn how to use Wikipedia, starting with always signing your posts on user pages with four tildes like this ~~~~.
I don't know about your situation. If it's true, and I have no reason to doubt you, it must be terrible, but your behavior here is not going to get you taken seriously or solve the problem. You should contact a German administrator on the German Wikipedia. Do it by email, using their email from their user page (there is a link on the left side). See if they can help you. -- Fyslee 14:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh no they stick unbelievable close together
Remember how many people in the world are communicating in english.
Many people no funny things.
Believe me nobody takes over responsibility there.
I tried over one year.
Administrator Markus Schweiß tried really hard.
But now he suffers from the collective administrator ignoration because he tried to mediate in that matter.
Believe me I already have gone trough hell because they indulged their darkest side.
So what can be worst than this.
Regards
Olaf Klenke
--Ekkenekepen 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please sign your post properly. I cannot take anything you say seriously when you don't follow simple rules here. -- Fyslee 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Just another short information
because I mentioned my problem at Jimbo Wales page they changed my side and blocked it
Comment you stay out of wikipedia and we put the real facts in again.
This is German Wikipedia life
And I liked working here but now I am fed up with this
Wikipedia has done no good to me.
But the problem is that I still believe in the idea--Ekkenekepen 10:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No matter how much...
We must treat our fellow editors with respect no matter how much they provoke us and no matter how indefensible their assertions may be. Finding the right approach is even harder when the editor is also a subject. Hang in there and keep your cool. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
II
See my response on my talk. --Dematt 14:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[Re] Image:California State Route 1.jpg
I am not sure of the exact point where I took the picture as I was stopping on the road frequently to take pictures. But I am sure this place is near to Hearst Castle (within 30-45 minutes) and I was driving towards San Francisco. I will try my best to locate the place of the photograph using Google earth. Thanks for your note.
Uh, okay... I'm not sure why you're telling me about this. There are lots of necks around; go take a better picture of a neck if you don't like that one. —Chowbok☠ 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Alternative medicine
Hey, thanks for pointing out the alternative medicine talk page problem. I'll add the correct link (if I can find it), and no, I haven't received any comments. I'm not Inuit, by the way :) Narssarssuaq 14:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
ABBA and Mariah
the mariah carey template in the ABBA article was actually appended to the bottom of Template:ABBA. it's been removed. frymaster 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I figured it must be something like that, but just couldn't figure it out. Has the sneaky person who did it been identified? -- Fyslee 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
no, no culprit has been uncovered -- and i probably won't go looking either. having done a lot of cvu work, i've come to the conclusion that counter-vandalism is best served with the mentality of a janitor rather than a cop :) frymaster 01:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Reversion on CSICOP
I reverted your edits because 1. the article is easier to read with the TOC on the right and there is no reason to change it. There is no "guideline" on placement of TOC and indeed there is the "TOC-right" tag to move them. and 2. There was already a link added earlier today to the name change by Bubba73. Also, the name change is not a "current event" it's a name change. It's not an evolving news story, so I'm going to remove that as well. No offense intended. -THB 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There are guidelines, and an article that starts out so different than all others is a shock to the eyes. It's simply not pretty. This isn't an ordinary article or book. It's Wikipedia's format. It has taken me awhile to get used to it, and I too was interested in trying to get articles to look like normal articles when I started here, but I learned that standard format is best. My other formatting and alphabetizing edits also got reverted, which wasted a lot of my time, IOW a exercise of bad faith on your part. I would rather we had talked about it privately. Be happy that I'm not a critic like Davkal who constantly tries to find fault. I'm Stephen Barrett's assistant listmaster, and I'm interested in helping, not trolling or destroying. Just another set of eyes to see things with. -- Fyslee 22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not finding anything about this in the link you gave in your edit summary, I'm either blind or tired, could you please point it out more specifically. There is nothing against using the TOC right in any guidelines I've seen. It has come up for deletion a couple of times but was kept for use at editors' discretion. It's purely a matter of opinion, you don't like the way it looks, I do. Please tell me about where in the page of the linked guideline I can find that info. I don't know who Stephen Barrett is, either, if you would explain that. Also, I assure you I'm not acting in bad faith. You may have missed the link to the name change in the links list. I'm also not seeing the alphabetizing that you said you did. I also don't see what Davkal has to do with this. I also apologize if I seem tired but I have had to deal with nothing but vandals all day. (I'm not implying that you are one obviously not, I'm just explaining why I'm tired.) -THB 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I also would like to say I don't appreciated being accused of acting in bad faith. You needn't apologize because I'm sure you genuinely feel that way. -THB 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Nor do I understand what you mean by wishing we had "talked about this privately". This is a collaborative, open effort. -THB 22:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to apologize anyway. I think it was I who was tired...;-) The changes I made didn't have any serious meaning to me, they were just matters of style, and they aren't worth debating or causing ill feelings. I'm truly sorry about that, so I'll let you form the page as you wish. Your points below are well taken. I guess I can get used to it. -- Fyslee 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a problem with a couple of your latest edits. Your move of Carl Sagan so that he faces in meets guidelines and looks better. However, now all the pics are on the right, which looks awful, and the same guideline says to stagger them. Maybe you could do that, as well.
Besides that, now the header for Church of Scientology makes it look like it's an upcoming event. That subtitle had already been edited and maybe even discussed. Although you have the right to do so, it's a bit aggravating for someone to show up and make changes that disregard prior efforts. I'm going to change that subtitle back. If you reverse, I won't change it again. -THB 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Potential COI issues not applicable
Okay, I've looked up Stephen Barrett. Your edits fail WP:COI since he is a fellow of the organization and you work for him. Or am I misinterpreting this? -THB 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is an "assistant listmaster"? You've been editing the article on Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett and others that potentially violate WP:COI. I would appreciate an explanation of all of this, surely I am misunderstanding something. -THB 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are misunderstanding somethings about me and the rules. The COI rules can potentially involve many people who edit here, and so they are worded rather carefully. I don't work for anyone but myself, and I have never hidden my identity or POV, unlike some of my antagonists here. Anyone with just a bit of savy can find very detailed information about me right here. I have never met Barrett or talked with him. I have exchanged emails with him a few times over the years, just like you or anyone else can. I am on a discussion list (over 500 members) which he began moderating some time after I had already begun participating. Much later he needed someone to keep an eye on the list over a weekend while he was out of town, so I did it. No big deal. I still do it once in awhile. We don't really "communicate" much about it as he is very busy and therefore rather terse. I rarely post to the list, and currently have over three thousand unread posts on that list, so you can see I'm not very involved. I watch the list a few times a year, and haven't had to do anything for over a year. I just watch to see if trolls start causing too much traffic that disrupts things. That's about it. If they do I have the email address of the guy who hosts the list. Neither Quackwatch or NCAHF host it, since it was started by someone else. I am not a member of any skeptic societies or the NCAHF either. Does exchanging emails with someone, or sharing their interests, or knowing a bit about them from what I can read on the internet, disqualify me? I don't think the COI rules can even remotely be interpreted in that manner. They are not intended to prevent people who really know something about a subject from editing. Here is something you might find interesting from the rules. If you truly do find something specific that you feel I might be violating, and it certainly could happen, please do alert me to it. I certainly wouldn't want to do it. My edits are subject to the same rules as all other's, and we all need help at times to keep on track, especially on controversial topics like those related to skepticism and quackery. I do appreciate friendly criticism. Now if you will apply the same concerns to those who hold antagonistic POV to Barrett, CSICOP (now CSI), NCAHF, etc., I would appreciate it. There are editors here who do nothing but attempt to libel and desparage him and those organisations. That isn't very Wikipedian, and I am just one of many who seek to ensure that articles are well sourced and not filled with deceptions and lies. As long as we edit properly, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. -- Fyslee 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (crossed out old info. Fyslee 21:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC))
Thanks for clearing that up. I am glad that I was correct in thinking I misunderstood. Thanks again. -THB 20:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop by a leave a big thanks for your assistance in defending timestamp enforcement for HagermanBot! Best, Hagerman(talk) 00:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Would appreciate some sort of response
Hi, I would appreciate some sort of response to my comments above, especially regarding the potential WP:COI. Thanks. -THB 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Heim theory
Your edit at my talk page: were you talking to User:68.94.203.13? I don't remember providing any link to a consensus. — coelacantalk — 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion. Yes, I was talking to that user. -- Fyslee 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your recent edits in the page on occupational therapists. The reason I removed the links is because all those links are available on the article on occupational therapy, and as it is, there has been a motion to have the two articles merged. --aishel 18:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That's good, since it was my suggestion....;-) Is it really happening? -- Fyslee 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, I wasn't even paying attention :) Sure, we can let it happen. No one else seems to be weighing in. But I have no clue how to do that stuff, so I'll give you the honors :) --aishel 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
First make sure other involved editors don't object. If they don't, then just make sure all the information is preserved. Any duplicate information can be deleted. Since other editors have probably labored for many hours over specific wordings, be sensitive to those wordings and be careful to not create a POV debate. Discuss your intentions on the talk page. When you have included all you can, just blank the page and leave a redirect. I've done this a number of times, but I have plenty of other things to do right now, so I'll let you do it. I see you've just created the category. Good going. I'm a PT and did the same for the PT category. It's working just fine, and I'm sure yours will too. If you need specific advice, just drop me a note here. -- Fyslee 19:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Lee Hunter
Ugh, he's such a friggin altie loon. --Havermayer 00:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If there is ever anything to the old adage about guilt by association, one can only exclaim - No wonder! I do know an exception to the rule. A good friend of mine who is an excellent researcher and skeptic is married to a psychic, and they are still married. I suspect he's good at compartmentalizing. Love can be a powerful force. -- Fyslee 00:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Fyslee—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 01:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion
I edited it slightly for clarification. Sorry you thought it might be directed at you. I should be including the diffs. --Ronz 01:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I figured as much. If her pattern from Usenet gets repeated here, her talk page should be filled with red stop signs every few hours, and multiple archives created within days! This babe's probably the most prolific Usenet poster known, and it's all about her hatred of others! Amazing, and so sad. -- Fyslee 01:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
wow
LOL how did you find that cfd so fast?? — coelacantalk — 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Just by chance. It was on my watchlist and I happened to be looking at it right then. I only have "1,118 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)"....;-) -- Fyslee 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Barrett
I disagree that truth and scientific accuracy mean little in a court of law. The standards for expert witnesses are not easy to meet, and to a large degree depend on what the prevailing medical wisdom is (what if they are wrong?). Secondly, once the experts pass that threshold, a jury then determines which are more believable. That is how it should be in a democracy.
As to Barrett's lawyers - I could not believe my eyes. I don't call that naive. I call that stupid or incompetent or both. A first year law student would flunk basic torts on that argument.Jance 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse my cynicism regarding the status of truth in courts of law. I guess I'm just one of the public who sees crooks getting off on technicalities too often. It must be frustrating for lawyers too. As far as the legal tactics in these cases, it's pathetic. How about working for Barrett? It would probably be pro bono....;-) You'd have to be doing it as an idealist. -- Fyslee 21:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Requiring a plaintiff to prove his case (and not insist that the defendant prove he is not guilty) is not a "technicality"! It is the foundation on which any fair justice system rests. Barrett argues that he should have more authority to demand proof from a defendant than even a state prosecutor would have in an investigation. The arrogance and presumption of even bringing such an argument is breathtaking. And as to the issue of 'malice' in a defamation case? Once again, asking that the attorneys who bring a lawsuit understand the meaning of a very basic tenet of tort law, and provide proof of the claim they allege is not a "technicality".
If you think these are "technicalities", then you don't believe in a system of justice at all, and would just condemn a citizen without any evidence and without any hearing. Last time I checked, MDs are not Gods or Kings, despite what they claim. And of real interest here is that Barrett has not had a license since 1993, and as the court points out, he has therefore not kept up with any documented continuing education. He is not specialized in research of this type, nor is he an epidemiologist etc. He has no training in the field he alleges is bogus. By all sane and rational reason, this man is not an expert qualified to be given any credibility in court. It wouldn't even matter if he were biased or not. No judge in their right mind would give any credence to such testimony. In fact, under Daubert or even lesser standards, he would never be qualified as an expert. Reading these cases on this article has convinced me that Barrett well earns the criticism.
I do not know enough about alternative medicine to be a zealot either way. I tend to shy away from most things that seem simply ridiculous to me - ie expensive 'foot baths' for 'detox' (huh?), or magenetic beds or bracelets (I like my latex bed just fine) etc. If I had cancer I would go to a good oncologist. However, that does not mean I am a big fan of doctors, either. I have found appalling the conflict of interests some MDs have -- those who make their living from the products they sell, and those who affiliate themselves with manufacturers of products they study, etc. I have seen the result of that type of conflict of interest, and have no respect for those doctors.
As the court pointed out, we do have federal regulatory agencies (and I might add a Congress that writes laws) that is tasked with making these determinations. No, it is not perfect, as the premature approval of silicone implants demonstrate. But it seems to me that silicone implants cause a lot more harm than any homeopathic medication ever could. And what is the alternative to a regulatory body or other governmental body deciding? You have self-proclaimed experts individually suing people or companies and expecting the defendants to provide the proof for plaintiff's case.
Finally, most MDs complain vociferously about lawsuits - especially when they are directed against themselves, even when there IS proof of malpractice. But it is okay for MDs to file lawsuits against others, without a shred of proof of wrongdoing?Jance 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a suggested title change here. The category description is now changed to make the category much more useful...
Thanks for your message. I applaud your work on the description but fear Lee Hunter et al at the relisted CfD have a point; and if there is to be category, the emotive word "quackery" is probably best avoided. I relisted the CfD, though, as a "gut instinct" (how scientific is that?...!) told me a generally acceptable category name has yet to surface... To that end, I've just posted another suggestion there. Thanks again, David Kernow(talk) 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Source on Barrett
Wikipedia does not allow itself to be used as a reliabe source. This would particularly be true of a talk page. We don't even KNOW if that was Barrett. Where do yoiu get your information that we 'have' to include what is clearly not a reliable source?Jance 19:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, and there is reasonable doubt as to the validity of the source.Jance 21:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no reasonble doubt about the identity of User:Sbinfo. It's Barrett alright. Not only has he posted things only Barrett would know, I have checked with Barrett. -- Fyslee 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Health Wiki Research
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.
Howdy Fyslee,
A while back you and others picked apart my Trigger Point and Barefoot Deep Tissue articles. I remembered you when I read this:
http://www.amjphysmedrehab.com/pt/re/ajpmr/abstract.00002060-200701000-00003.htm
It does not support connections to trigger points, but is curious. BTW- I was a skeptic, until I was told that I was a healer. I can see problems on people, and fix them. Call it placebo effect if you wish, but it works.
svacina.com
Sorry if I goofed up the input; I am a perpetual wikinovice (although I am writing my 3rd website):
santabarbaramassagetherapy.com
user=psnack —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.198.243 (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
Comment about Mercola edits
The organization "Integrative Health Care Centers of America" might have existed as a website for a few years. However, a Google search today returns close to zero hits and a search in the online database Factiva givs no articles or press releases mentioning this "organization". It is clearly irrelevant and in no way notable today. MaxPont 11:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree and have not reinstated the link that was added by someone. I just wanted to make sure you are aware that Quackwatch isn't lying. I wonder whatever happened to it? Did it just go underground as a network of quacks and never become an official group? -- Fyslee 11:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Archive
I got the idea from another user page - he did not archive. I do not see that archive is a requirement. Do you?Jance 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall that it's an absolute requirement, but it's considered very bad practice to not do so, and will be seen as an attempt to avoid the scrutiny of other editors, which is forbidden here. In fact it will only cause more scrutiny. Everything functions on transparency here. Deleting everything simply lessens one's credibility and raises suspicions, which isn't a desirable thing to do. That's why archiving is standard practice. -- Fyslee 02:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, but it really is not a big deal, either. I find it odd that you would change it, though. Jance 05:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I had no intention of offending you. Wikipedia is a funny place where certain forms of refactoring are common and allowed. I did it in that spirit. Both refactoring and archiving promote productive discussion by improving clarity and accessibility. Archives help other editors to scrutinize our track record here, and a preservation of that track record is often quite important to them. (The link to scrutinizing is from a totally different subject, but the principle still applies.) -- Fyslee 08:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, stop immediately filling my page
Original heading: (deleted), STOP IMMEDIATELY FILLING MY PAGE WITH YOUR DELUSIONS AND REVERTING MY EDIT (the long heading was screwing up the format of my talk page!)
Your behavior is abominable. Your bullying tactics typical. When I came back to Wikipedia, you have put a deluded version of Barrett's losing case to me so that it was unrecognizable.
You have proven yourself to be an unworthy source. You consistently lied that NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and when you couldn't prove your lies, you attempted to censor me. STOP RIGHT NOW. You are a perfect example of the bully tactics of Barrett's various questionable operations. (Removed spam link -- Fyslee 00:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)) Thank you and Please stop immediately.Ilena 00:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Start following the rules here, stop attacking other editors, assume good faith. -- Fyslee 01:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee... please stop filling my talkpage with...
Original heading: FYSLEE ... PLEASE STOP FILLING MY TALKPAGE WITH YOUR WILD AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS (the long heading was screwing up the format of my talk page!)
Getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Just start following the rules here, stop attacking other editors, and assume good faith. -- Fyslee 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
A question on quotes
Hi Fyselee. I understand your recent edit on 'Barrett v. Rosenthal'. I have no quibble with it, but have a question for you. When one places something in quotes eg "stalking" that usually suggests it is not a fact. There is a phrase for that, but I am not sure off the top of my head what it is. Is there a need for the phrase, alleged "stalking" (with stalking in quotes). Or would you remove the quotes then? I agree that adding "alleged" clarifies. This is only a small point, but I do not know what the writing convention is, if there is one. Jance 21:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Placing it in quotes can be interpreted as:
It's a precise quote.
It's a non-serious use of the word.
Regardless of which meaning above is in use, I just wanted to make sure that no one reading it would be led to believe that it was a true and proven fact. I'm not sure of the conventions. -- Fyslee 09:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Anecdotes or anecdotal evidence ?
Happy New Year. You cite the quotation below with obvious approval:
"Anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses." - Pediatric Allergy & Immunology, 1999 Nov;10(4) 226-234
My question is this: Would not sincere practitioners of, for example, herbal medicine, agree that anecdotes are useless, but that anecdotal evidence based on a very large number of cases or long tradition, is an entirely different matter ? Robert2957 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Robert. Long time no hear...;-) Hope you've had a nice Xmas holiday. You have some good questions. The quote should not be taken as an all inclusive coverage of the subject, but specifically to the fact that anecdotes often point to unusual and rare, not ordinary and common, occurrences. That's why they get noticed and retold. I have actually written a little essay on the subject:
Maybe it can help you understand some of my POV on the subject. Anecdotes do have a certain type of value. If you have more questions, don't hesitate to return. -- Fyslee 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Help!
Hey Fyslee. WOuld you help on NCAHF? I think your input here would be helpful. Curtis is recreating NCAHF webpage here. The way he has done it is terrible, and terrible writing. I even suggested that we call Dr. Barrett and ask his opinion! I certainly agree that the position of NCAHF on these issues is important to include. I don't agree in 20 pages. There should be a summary of each, with the main points mentioned. Then, a reference to the appropriate postiion paper. Thanks!Jance 20:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, please help. This editor is abusive. There is no other word for it. He has now followed me over to breast implant and is saying there is no evidence, instead of no clear evidence, and again constantly reverting. I don't know where he came from, but this is the worst editor I have ever encountered.Jance 00:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know if you agree with the edits in NCAHF? Do you agree with what Curtis is doing? His defamation, ridicule, insults, and abusiveness, not to mention copying large sections of various webpages? Is this an example of a "Barrett fan?" WowJance 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
On another note, if you are the one that asked Ronz for help, I agree with your concern. In fact, I may remove your name myself from the talk page, but I don't know if that will remove the history. There is a place on the home page where you can email Wikipedia - I would do that.Jance 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your additions. I have enabled my eletronic mail. Let me know what to watch and trail. Also, review my edits. I'll let you take it from here. In the future under "See also" at the main quackery article there should be a link to the "List of articles related to quackery". I would wait a while before adding the link. If they find this article they will try and delete it too. I created this new article as a back door to the category that was wrongfully deleted by voting. Those voters who did not like the category are perfect examples of the quacks who sell snake oil and so forth. The category is gone but the truth lives on! --QuackGuru 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't Laetrile be added here?Jance 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed! Please do. Anything remotely related to the subject is welcome. -- Fyslee 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, please be aware that we are not on opposing sides wrt quackery. I don't appreciate your accusations of an editorial attempt to suppress a POV. I also don't like the suggestion that I was so careless I didn't give "even a casual examination of the content" before going to AfD. I'm quite aware the list contains both sides. That it does so without guiding the reader as to which side an article is on, is one of its problems. I ask you to consider striking out your personal accusations and stick to discussing the merits or otherwise of the list. Regards, Colin°Talk 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll make a back up copy there. Thanks. -- Fyslee 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sciatica
G'day Fyslee, if you have some spare time, could you occasionally keep an eye on Sciatica. An editor there keeps trying to insert a statement that homeopathy is efficacious for treating sciatica but won't provide any decent reference. I'm of course happy for him to state it if he can provide acceptable evidence. Thanks! Maustrauser 11:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on this for me. I have added the quackery list to my watchlist. Cheers, Maustrauser 23:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Polevoy
I can never remember how to spell that. Yes, someone claiming to be Polevoy came on the talk page of Barrett v. Rosenthal, following Curtis. I really am wondering if there are sockpuppets, and I wonder who Curtis is. Curtis has wikistalked me to Breast implant and made "edits" that even Oliver (the main cheerleader for BI) did not agree with. On Barrett v. Rosenthal, Curtis made changes that misrepresented the case, and misstated court findings. Jance 20:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting! I'm not sure if it's wise of him to appear here, but as an involved party, he has a privileged position, allowing him to correct errors. This is best done by posting on the talk page, rather than the article itself. -- Fyslee 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
If that is he (and I am not sure it is), it is not smart of him. To my knowledge, he only posted on the talk page. He is not privileged to defame Rosenthal re something unrelated to this case. Moreover, the only mistakes on the article itself were those edits added by Curtis. I also thank you for your helpful edits on the formating. I would appreciate your input on the article. I actually think it is correct now. I could add references for the quotes (which were footnotes) describing the original complaint. Whoever added that should have added the source, but I don't mind doing it.Jance 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In response to [Fyslee] claiming my sites are "vanity" and the ones he promotes are not.I disagree that my links are anymore "vanity links" than quackwatch.com or the probably illegal operation of ncahf.org and any of millions of webpages linked to Wikipedia. I have been under attack by these losing plaintiffs for 6 years, and since the final Supreme Court of California ruling against them, their actions are een more egregious. The entire webring that [Fyslee] operates is filled with Barrett's attacks on scientists and physicians that they hate and try to destroy. [Fyslee] is profoundly inaccurate as to who I am and why I have devoted 11 years of my life to raising awareness to the dangers of breast implants and the dangers of the PR teams paid by the breast implant, chemical and pharmaceutical industries. [Fyslee] may call it a 'smear' to be linked to Stephen Barrett, but it is a fact. For several years, he was the Assistant Listmaster for the Healthfraud List and his webring links all of Barrett's questionable sites together which promote each other. He was also a member of the now removed "Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes" which provided Smear Campaigns via blogs and usenet of people Barrett and the other losing plaintiffs were suing. [Fysless] and Barrett were on that list together for 6 years (up until last week.)[8] [Fyslee] removed every link I have made on Wikipedia, filled my talk pages with the same nonsense he wrote above, and it feels exactly like stalking. He even interfered in my personal talk page. To Jance, I do definitely believe it was Terry Polevoy who posted under drpolevoy yesterday. He has repeated the same things on usenet and the healthfraud list and follows me wherever I post. Ilena 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I got a confirmation and copy. --Ronz 16:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't work for me. -- Fyslee 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No message or cant reply or both? --Ronz 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Check you email now. -- Fyslee 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Got it! That's how I want it to work because of potential spam. If it's too much an inconvenience then I'll have to set up an account specifically for Wikipedia. --Ronz 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Mine works fine with my "real" email address. I never get any spam because of Wikipedia. Without yours being activated, I won't be able to communicate some important things to you. -- Fyslee 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, still trying to figure out how this works, so maybe I'm making some incorrect assumptions. "Note that the sender's e-mail address will be visible to the recipient." So they hide the delivery address? I suppose I need to experiment a bit with this and see how it works. Wasn't my address on the message I sent you? --Ronz 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, at least I have an email address to use when needed. -- Fyslee 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the "E-mail this user" feature is something I can't see until I allow it myself. Bah! --Ronz 19:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The link is very visible on your user page and the bottom left. Click it. To activate it, you have to change your Preferences (top of page). -- Fyslee 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Never noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll probably leave it unactivated until I get another forwarding account. --Ronz 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Would you like this page to be deleted, as in no longer exist?--CJKing 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
?? Great minds think in .... I just thought of doing it, did it, and then found your message here! Weird! Well, it's done. -- Fyslee 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee, it's not gone yet. The page is still there. But we can make it so that it is deleted. Go back to the page and put this on it:{{db-author}}. Someone will then delete it the right way. Make sure that after you put it on there, you leave the page alone. A good way to see that the page is deleted is to watch the link to the page. If it is red, that means that the page is truly deleted. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Just click the blue J.--CJKing 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Sen. Kennedy Seeks Universal Health Plan [9]...And Denmark residents love their health care system, she said. What do you think about effectiveness & citizen satisfaction (say vs Canada)? (I saw your earlier comments on Danish taxes, socialistic outlook generally, and provider comp)--I'clast 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I can´t compare with Canada, but I´d probably prefer a Danish hospital over an American county hospital, but here I don´t have a choice. In the states, if I a normal insurance coverage, I could choose. Here private hospitals are few and far between, and the NHI doesn´t pay anything. So I have no choice but a second rate system that works okay, with no choice of a first rate system (American private hospital). As far as Danish satisfaction goes, they have been spoon-fed (brainwashed) with the idea that "American conditions" are what they get shown from Harlem ghettoes or the Appalachians (the exception), instead of describing such conditions as "Russian conditions". --
Thanks
The Resilient Barnstar
I award the Reslient Barnstar to Fyslee for his continual good nature and his willingness to persist in improving Wikipedia despite continual personal attacks. It's great to have you here. Maustrauser 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello
I edited the Craniosacral article, and you didn't allow any of it to stay, except to move the Criticisms heading down further. To quote yourself:
Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. One must allow presentation of both sides of any controversy. To leave out or suppress one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less. -- Fyslee 22:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
So, can we talk?!
I see you are a naturalist/atheist, quack buster. Yes, I see that, and see that you have your place. Why will you not allow me mine?
By the way, Indian yogis discovered the Unified Field Theory at least 2 thousand years before Western science came to the same conclusion: our consciousness affects matter.
My references in the article are not up to par, but it takes a lot of work. Can you allow me some good faith?
Another thing, the missing link has not been found, yet science is still relying on Darwin's Hypothesis of Evolution.
As far as the article, the opening para. is just not accessible in its current form. It has practically no meaning, no enlightening qualities for a person to understand clearly. Why are you defending CDN99's work, from 14 Dec '05???!!! There has been discussion that it is neg. POV from the get-go. At least allow a premise some breathing room!!!!!!! Save it for a Criticisms heading. Then bash the hell out of the theory, if you please. Go at it full force!
Skepticism can sometimes be healthy, but it also can sometimes be stifling. You don't know everything. (I do see that you know alot).
What do you have to say? Can you allow me some breathing room, some ability to edit? Do you have nothing better to do than to make a war out of these things? (Acupuncture, etc.)
Fyslee Vanity Links posted on Wiki since he set up shop here
Fylsee has been advertising for Stephen Barrett and his quackbuster regime since he set up shop on Wikipedia. He attempts to bully off all viewpoints they don't want. Click here to see him advertising his vanity links [10] When I began posting on Wiki, he would remove every single fact and reference of mine and continues to do so. When I point out who he is based on his own postings, see this one, [11], he claims he is being 'attacked.' Every link he posts for the quackwatch regime is one link from his own vanity links. For months and months, he lied that NCAHF was a legal California Corporation and when links from the State of Califoria showed he was lying, he would remove them and report me, claiming he was "attacked." Please do not let him bully you off of Wikipedia as he attempts to do for so many others. Ilena 16:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
His Quack Files all link to Barrett and all their quacky groups.He continues to cyberstalk me and remove my links while advertising his own vanity links.
I'm not at all surprised...;-) As the Assistant Listmaster for the Healthfraud Discussion List, I'm used to dealing with this stuff daily, and often feel we are dealing with cultists, rather than people who use rational arguments. There are some who do stick to reason and evidence, but not many. If the subject interests you, you're welcome to join.....;-) -- Fyslee 09:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/SCAM
A longer version of what was deleted can be found here at SkepticWiki - [1] - where SPOV is encouraged. -- Fyslee
Dubious Aspects of Osteopathy -- Fyslee 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
So that's her highly misleading response when caught (again) linkspamming her site here at Wikipedia. She still doesn't seem to try to understand the issue of linkspamming. She isn't a newbie; the whole issue of her spamming has been discussed; other editors are far more active in removing the links than myself; and the link is not on her own user space. If it wasn't a personal attack hate site with serious and libelous issues, it might not be taken so seriously by so many editors, but her refusal to abide by policies here means other editors don't look the other way, as is often the case on talk pages. Many editors have done things as newbies which are forgiven because they are newbies, including myself, but persistent linkspamming by experienced users who have been repeatedly warned is another matter. Anyone who wants to make a comparison between her claims against myself and of her own linkspamming can do so. There is no comparison. Anyone who needs more information can email me. -- Fyslee 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Altering other peoples' text on talk pages
Hi, Fyslee,
I see that there's a bit of history between you and User:Ilena. It seems to me that you guys really need to get some help resolving your issues, rather than spreading it around Wikipedia. It also means that you need to be especially careful with the edits you each make regarding the other. In this case, your edit to Talk:Strategic lawsuit against public participation is more easily interpreted as a furthering of the dispute between the two of you, rather than a legitimate attempt to improve things. You quoted WP:SIG as your reason for editing her link out of her text, but I see no support in that policy for your edit. On the contrary, WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable states "Don't edit others' comments". If Ilena's site is dangerous or malicious, then it needs to be reported to developer so that they can blacklist it. If you disagree with it, then please feel free to question its inclusion in articles. But its mention on a talk page (especially on an article related to the subject matter) is perfectly legitimate, and the prohibition against editing others' comments seems to be quite applicable. Thanks!
I disagree about the link. WP:SIG#External_links is very clear, "Do not include links to external websites in your signature." Ilena has been doing this for over a month. Multiple editors have been cleaning up after her. I do like your suggestion of blackmailing her site altogether given that she will not follow repeated advise to stop posting a link to her site where she's made personal attacks at multiple Wikipedia editors. --Ronz 02:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't normally like to carry on debates with a third party on someone else's talk page, so if any further discussion on this point is needed, we should do it at either of our talk pages or Talk:SLAPP. There's not really an indication on this page that the link was part of her signature. She referenced it in her text and madeothereditsto the page which did include a signature and did not include this link. kmccoy(talk) 03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since this involved myself, you're welcome to continue here. -- Fyslee 10:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced personal attack moved here
"...READ MY LIPS very carefully" "Any deviations will not be tolerated." " If you screw up this attempt..."
Wow, talk about needing a lesson in being civil! You two obviously have some history, but IMO Ilena expressed her concerns here in a civil manner. I don't see anything wrong in expressing concern about your numerous links to Stephen Barrett Enterprise websites where donations are accepted as well as the true status of claimed non-profit. I, too, have expressed these concerns. I would be curious to know exactly how many links you have implanted in Wikipedia, possibly over 100, and why you think this wouldn't attract others concern as well, especially given your history of a relationship with SB. When did Wikipedia become your personal litter box/sandbox? Steth 04:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
