User talk:Alan2012

Welcome!

Hello, Alan2012, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Addhoc 17:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Addhoc 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthomolecular medicine

Just so you understand it was Jefffire who reached a compromise concerning the introduction. If from outside of Wikipedia you have personal issues concerning persons who are unconvinced by the orthomolecular approach then either you shouldn't edit this article or you should be very careful not to consider other Wikipedians as guilty by supposed association. Have a look at our policies and guidelines, in particular, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks, Addhoc 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have surfaced several high quality references. Congratulations - good, incisive points, and welcome. Tempering the tone of a strong argument is an art that takes time to absorb the philosophy and rules of Wikipedia. Reading the Talk pages and edit histories in articles that interest you may give you important vicarious experience that is useful. You have entered at a hot zone in Wikipedia at an especially hot time and made good points that are greatly appreciated by some of us. As you can see, passions and differences of opinion can run petty high[1] & ideas of neutral seem to fluctuate somewhat with the individual. I hope that you decide to continue to contribute to orthomolecular articles.--TheNautilus 22:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent review of QW

• Alan2012, I posted a message on I'clast talk page as follow:

" I'clast. many thanks for the links to the independent review of QW. Very relevant and factual. Hopefully that will help focus on the real issues instead of having to deal with the specific worldview of some editors. :-) NATTO 09:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC) "

He mentioned your own efforts and suggested I thank you as well, which I am very pleased to do. Thanks NATTO 11:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in voice you opinion here: [2]. Levine2112 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

Hi. You may be interested in an article that has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to cast your vote and comment. Steth 04:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

civility

Hi Alan. With regards to this post, I want to remind you about wikipedia's civility policy. It is very important to refrain from making things personal, even if (especially if!) you think it's deserved. Best wishes, Bucketsofg 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

peer review article

Though you may not realise it from my latest edits, I'm a sympathizer. But Multi-posting on WP looks very much like POV pushing--the subtler technique is to say somewhat different things each time, & keep it short. I removed the duplicate from one clearly less appropriate talk page, Weasel words. I think it should have been kept on the p-r talk page, but I am not about to get into a quarrel there with a respected editor, so it is still on RS, where I added some comments. I will get what I think the key part of it back on peer-review, and in the article, not the talk page, though I am going to wait a few days. I've cited jefferson in (peer-reviewed) published work, which will help. I've posted my email if you prefer to go offline. If you answer here, I will see it. DGG 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were pushing POV, just that posting in that way might be taken that way. I do in on lists all the time, but it seems not to be the custom here. DGG 04:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise you not to re-add it. I assure you it is not the way to get your opinions heard. Just post a note saying that you've posted an essay on it at RR. When in Rome, DGG 04:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I think I'll go with my original plan. There is nothing remotely like spamming going on; these were SINGLE, information-dense posts and I do not plan to go back and argue for or try to "sell" anything, much less hector anyone. THey can do with the info as they please. I am doing for them as I would have them do for me: inform me of a very important couple of publications in this area, and with them a critical change in the status of peer review, at least in the biomedical sphere. By the way, my post it seems is something of a hot potato. Someone on the Quackwatch talk page wanted to MOVE IT OFF, entirely! Ha! I can understand. It is not pleasant to see a sacred cow savaged like that. "A wonderful hypothesis slain by an ugly fact", as some pundit put it. Thanks again. -- Alan2012 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it so happens, that editor has been somewhat busy over the last week and didn't notice the reinsertion of the post. The moving of the post has nothing to do with my opinion of the content. The Quackwatch talk page, an obscure location among millions of similar pages, only frequented by a small number of specific editors who won't necessarily be interested in the post, is simply not the right place for the post, and won't result in discussion that is useful to Wikipedia. Posting there would be like publishing the results of the Human Genome Project in Physical Review D. --Philosophus ^T 01:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

civility at Quackwatch

Hi Alan. Thanks for your note. My reminder about civility was not meant for your individually, but for everyone there on both sides. Best wishes, Bucketsofg 05:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Oops. I just saw the edit you were referring to above. I'm sure you felt (and possibly feel) justified in your anger, but lashing out like rarely helps; it only puts other editors' backs up and, in the worst case scenario, results in sanctions against you. No matter how deserved you feel that kind of criticism is, it is always better to bite your tongue, remain civil, and (if must be) temporarily disengage. Best wishes, Bucketsofg 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving talk page sections

I've moved your peer review discussion from Talk:Quackwatch to Wikipedia_talk:Reliable sources, which is the appropriate place for it. We shouldn't split up the discussion by posting it in multiple places. --Philosophus ^T 07:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Science Apologist"

Hi. I mostly agree with your comment in Talk:Cold fusion -- "Science Apologist", but unfortunately it violates WP:NPA. Better for everyone if we can keep the temperature down. Also, according to User:ScienceApologist, he is on an extended Wikibreak. I was going to delete your comment but it will look better if you do so yourself. Sorry! --Wfaxon 07:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later:

• The purpose of the talk page associated with an article is about improving the article.
• A well-documented critique of another editor remains a critique of that editor.
• I'm out of this loop, but please consider reading WP:NPA again.

--Wfaxon 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unblock

My IP addy was blocked tonight, for no apparent reason. Funny, but I had just made an edit (on a talk page, not an article) just moments before I was blocked. Heaven only knows why I was blocked. Please unblock.

Thanks! -- Alan2012 02:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan. What a wild world Wiki is! I found what I believe is your block log and don't see any listed. Here it is [3]. Thanks for daring to ask important questions on the arbitration. I see that that Fyslee found a reason to remove them. Apparently, they weren't in the right place. I'm a bit stymied ... if I can help in any way let me know. Best from the Jungles Ilena (chat) 04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment?

I'd like clarification of your statement so I can defend myself if necessary [4]. Thank you. --Ronz 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't edit much, I'd like to at least know if you are considering any response at all to this request. --Ronz 00:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garlic

I reverted your recent edits to this article, as the tone was unencyclopedic and some of the material included self-references to Wikipedia. It is possible that some of it could be added to the article if worded in more neutral and objective style, but as it was, it was unacceptable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hit bull: thanks for your comments. The self-ref to Wikipedia was intended to give the reader a clue as to what is really going on; i.e. that some rather extremely negative bias against garlic was at work in the editing of that entry. Whatever. I won't insist on that part. But I do insist that the facts be told -- which is, as you can see, the point of the bulk of my edit. Alan2012 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Garlic. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. [5] --Ronz 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ronz. It was no violation of NPOV. My edit corrected the extreme POV that existed in the original -- as you know. Please do not expect wiki articles to conform to your biases. Alan2012 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for mediation I think. --Ronz 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, time for you to indicate specifically what is wrong with the current version. Alan2012 02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring NPOV, specifically, and have accused me of bias when you were given a warning about this, by two different editors. --Ronz 02:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must indicate specifically where the POV problem is. My edit has in fact served to eliminate the POV problem of the original; the specific POV problems with the original are clearly evident in my edit. What POV problem are YOU talking about? Be specific. Alan2012 03:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pov problems I'm most concerned with has already been mentioned, specifically. You're choosing to ignore them. I'm seeking moderation. --Ronz 15:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main pov and other problems have either been corrected, or explained on the Talk page now such that it is a matter of coming to a conclusion as to how they are to be corrected. Please see the Talk page. Please join the discussion instead of remaining mumm. Please be specific about your objections. What, specifically, is wrong with the current version? Please quote the precise passage that needs changing, and provide alternative wording (or indicate suggested omission). Wholesale reverts are mindless and will not be tolerated. You must be intelligent, and specific. Alan2012 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated incivil behavior

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [6], [7], [8], --Ronz 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [9], [10], --Ronz 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

--Ronz 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See response on your talk page. If anyone is being incivil here, it is you. Your wholesale reverts are mindless and indeed uncivilized, since the specific objections either have been or are being addressed; see the Talk page. Note that I did not say that you are mindless; I said that your wholesale reverts are mindless, as they clearly are (read the content). I will say however that you are, in reverting as you have, being extremely rude and disruptive. Your feedback has been solicited, repeatedly, and you've refused to give any, except continuing with wholesale reverts. I don't care about your personality, I care about what you have to say, of substance, about the actual content. So far you've said practically nothing. Why not? Alan2012 16:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: General assertions of "POV", without being specific as to what and how, don't cut it. Simply be specific, as Shot Info was, and we can start talking. If you wish, you could step in and take Shot's place in the text above; i.e. respond to my comments, point by point, with whatever you see or object to. I await, and will take pleasure in, your first intellectually substantial contribution here. Alan2012 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page usage

I don't want to be too dogmatic here, but Wikipedia's talk page guidelines specify that article talk pages are to be used to coordinate improvement of the article, rather than as a platform for one's personal views or to discuss tangentially related subjects without direct relevance to the editing process. I understand you have an interest in mainstream medicine and its potential biases, particularly regarding pharmaceutical advertising. However, using Talk:Garlic as a platform to debate such issues is not appropriate. There are plenty of forums to debate such issues; Wikipedia article talk pages are generally not one of them, per Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a battleground. Posts like this one are generally discouraged in such a forum. MastCell ^Talk 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Please see mine on the garlic talk page. What I posted was in no way a "tangentially related subject", unless you truly believe that the quality of sources is irrelevant. (Do you?) What I posted is directly relevant to producing quality encyclopedia entries. Indeed there are few things that could be more relevant than the matter of reliability of sources. In truth, what is happening here is that you are labelling, pejoratively, the matters that I raise (regarding relative source quality) as "personal views" and "tangents", when it is obvious that they are not. Please stop. It is unbecoming for an intelligent person, which I still assume you to be. You may find these issues uncomfortable, but that is no excuse. Alan2012 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add large swaths of copyrighted material to articles or talk pages

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Talk:Orthomolecular medicine. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]