User talk:Theresa knott/archive 2

recent conflicts

Hi Theresa,

I appreciate your efforts to try to mediate at The Holocaust Industry. I have just left a message on User talk:Leumi which sums up my view of the conflict. I would be most grateful if you would take a look at it and let me know what you think. Thanks and kind regards. -- Viajero 10:44, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks. You may be right about the last paragraphy, but it is the result of my deep frustration at my failed efforts to reason with him. He is always extremely polite but he doesn't listen. At a certain point, discourse fails and one has to define boundaries. I don't know how else to go about it. Sadly, -- Viajero 11:26, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

editing a protected page!

Theresa, perhaps it was unintentional: you just edited The Holocaust Industry and it is protected. Please revert your edit ASAP. Thanks. -- Viajero 11:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No problem, Theresa, I have done it myself twice in the past. But listen, I must say I am rather concerned about your role here. Last night, Leumi and I had a long, exhausting conflict about his insistence on inserting in the text that the book contributed to holocaust denial and anti-semtism. I said that the assertion was an opinion, and that for it to be included he would have to supply documentary evidence in the form of a news report in the mainstream media, indicating it was a genuine widespread concern. His response was to come up with that document, which if you look at it, you will see is a letter from the ADL, a notoriously rabid pro-Israel advocacy group, chastising the University of Georgetown for inviting Finkelstein to speak. I strenously protested this; it is in no way, shape, or form a suitable reference for this article. At this point, the page was protected by Angela, with Leumi's last version.
Now I would be the very last to insist that you familiarize yourself with the issues and follow these excruciating debates on the Talk pages, but if you don't, the value of your contributions to these conflicts will be severely limited. For me, to be fussing about the location of that attribution suggests to me that you are not really paying attention to the underlying issues. When that page is unprotected, I am going to fight tooth and nail to have that link and the assertion removed.
Respectfully, -- Viajero 12:27, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Theresa, I will definitely try to remember to do that, and I have in many instances. The problem is that in a lot of circumstances, what I take out and put on the talk page is put right back in. In the case of Viajero's and I's argument, and please let me state that I have the utmost respect for Viajero's work here and his intentions which I am positive are excellent, on the difference between "claim that they were forced to leave" and "forced to leave" (I'm paraphrasing the exact words), Viajero placed back the relevant sentence right after I removed it, claiming that my argument for it's removal wasn't worthy of a hearing, at the same time he demanded the removal of other wording that I was speaking with him on in the talk page and consented to moving there. When a double standard is applied to these issues, I can't see how we can move forward. I'm willing to work and discuss on these issues on the talk page and I don't want an edit war anymore than anyone else. I just ask that we keep the same rules applying to everyone, in all cases. Leumi 23:17, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

rewind

Earlier today, I was rereading the Talk page and I realized that you were following the issues quite closely, and so my impression apropos of moving the link was quite mistaken. Sorry about that! -- Viajero 02:03, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's ok. I figured that you were probably feeling frustrated and so I didn't take you comments personally. theresa knott 09:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Guidelines for controversial articles

Theresa, partly as a tool for helping us move forward, I just started this this meta-page Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and I wondered if you have anything to add. Many thanks.

Hi again, I have also made a proposal on Talk:The Holocaust Industry to help us get going again. -- Viajero 01:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I hope leumi either agrees to it, or comes up with a proposal that you can agree to. theresa knott 08:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome, Theresa! User:Robert_Happelberg

You're more than welcome. I hope you decide to stick around.theresa knott 21:13, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Medical Scientism

Sadly, Theresa, you will find that Mr NH has no interest in Talk, only in promoting his absurd POV at the expense of everything else. Cheers, Adam 14:30, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I know, but you've gotta try. theresa knott 14:55, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Theresa knott, I am still waiting for you to follow through at Talk:Medical Scientism or was all you talk so much hot air? -- Mr-Natural-Health 13:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail!

No, I do not think so. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: Mr. N-H and David Gerard

I don't like defending Mr. N-H, but it was actually David, who requested Alternative Medicine protected. [1]. Rasmus Faber 12:00, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail!

It is indisputable!

There is NO Edit War in Alternative medicine, nor is the content in dispute. You guys are playing dirty. And, of course, all of my editing is made in order to improve articles. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:58, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail!

I have agreed to arbitration in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. -- Mr-Natural-Health 05:12, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got mail!

As I have a life, I obviously have a limited amount of time available to spend on this process. Beyond a job, running a 75 page health accredited web site, I run a Yahoo Mailing list where I comment on the latest health research, or about 2 studies a day, 365 days of the year.

I have already stated my position on numerous occasions, in numerous different places. And, my editing activities have been well documented in page history. Likewise, the editing tactics of RK and the others are well documented with the exception that RK, or somebody else, has selectively deleted some of their editing activities from page history.

I originally declined because of my perception that it would only be another structured way to waste more of my limited time. On my mailing list and website, I can actually get work done. In this place, everyone is editing the same stuff over and over again in a never ending circle.

If Theresa Knott can demonstrate that something tangible will come out of the process that wont be deleted 100% the first opportunity that these people get, I would be happy to cooperate in the mediation process.

From my viewpoint, alternative medicine is a meaningless place holder top node article that should contain a minimal amount of text. If we can place the links to the branches of alternative medicine in a separate article so that others can add links to new branches as they please the text portion of alternative medicine can then be permanently protected. The problem is that these people have a perverse need to add baseless POV criticism on virtually every line of text in alternative medicine. All the attacks and support should be placed individually in the respective articles that deal with each specific branch of alternative medicine rather than in the place holder top node article called Alternative medicine.

If something tangible like this can be accomplished then, I would be happy to cooperate in the mediation process. -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Iridology ... sigh

Thank you for getting so involved in iridology, which looks to be a long and difficult slog. I'm already worn out - it's great that somebody knowledgeable has stepped up. (From the looks of your User page, it seems you've stepped up in a lot of difficult slogs!) - DavidWBrooks 16:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, it would be so much easier to just write "Iridology is wishful thinking claptrap, like palm reading and feng shui" and go on to something useful ... being polite is awfully annoying at times. - DavidWBrooks 16:56, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Theresa. I've been reading Wikipedia:Requests for mediation because I'm beginning to think that iridology is not going to be easy to sort out. I saw your name there, so you're obviously fond of wading into conflicts like this. I don't feel that irismeister (who appears to know a lot about the subject) is going to seriously and clearly start discussing the subject rather than reverting the article and insulting everyone else. What do you think, has it reached the point at which I (or someone else) should request mediation with irismeister on this article? Or should I just leave the whole thing alone for a while since I'm beginning to lose my sense of humour over his/her attitude? By the way, iridology is certainly not something I know a great deal about, but I would be willing to research and correct that lack. Fabiform 00:51, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

thank you for your support, Theresa, and hallo over the Atlantic to London Kils 18:13, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Your mediation with Mister Natural Health

I am enquiring you both on the behalf of Wikipedias mediation committee that you indicate which mediators would you would prefer to mediate between you. You may indicate a strict order of preference, or list those mediators acceptable to you, or those which are unacceptable to you; or any combination of the above. Do note however that Ed Poor has indicated that he shall be unavailable in this particular mediation. You might also consider the fact that if there is no mediator that is at the very least acceptable to both, mediation is untenable, which would be very unfortunate, and may (although not automatically) even possibly lead the dispute to move directly into binding arbitration without a mediation phase. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 01:08, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

It appears that in your question Mister Natural Health wishes to proceed directly to arbitration, after all. Although I regret this eventuality, I have thus informed the Arbitration committee. Your further correspondance should be directed thence.

(for the mediation committee)

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 02:32, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think I'd better keep out of it. I have no real belief in the process and feel he should have been seen off as soon as it was clear what he was at in terms of refusing to work with others and slinging mud all round. I guess I have nothing to add by way of evidence that's not on public view anyway. Hope I'm wrong and the process goes really well, but I note he seems to be staying away today. Mind you, I've been timed out so often that anything could be happening. Bmills 15:39, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He too may be suffering time outs and is unable to edit. Also protecting the pages seems to have slown him down a lot, but thge pages can't be protected indefinitely. theresa knott 15:57, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your Request for Arbitration

  • The arbitration committee is not able to arbitrate disputes until an appropriate process has been created and approved. Please pursue other avenues in the meantime. Sorry to have misled you. Fred Bauder 19:33, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • As you may glean from my talk page; the mediation between you and Mr-Natural-Health appears to be on again. So, please indicate who of the mediation panel you would prefer (an ordered list, if you prefer), accept or do not accept as mediator, and we may then perhaps finally get this show on the road. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:05, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop in and say thank you and good luck with your mediation. I attempted it earlier, but wasn't too successful. It's good to keep a cool head against this character, and I'm glad to see that you are. - Scooter 03:43, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thought police for medical articles by lab technician

Why do you keep the editing thing, Theresa? Besides, mediation is per definitiam in medias res. Need poles for that, not mediocrity. Go back to your homework and leave Wiki bandwidth free for some really constructive, literate, decent work : ) Yeah, ready for mediation when you are : ) irismeister 23:58, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)

Hello again Theresa. In the last few hours I have in fact been thinking more about the idea of mediation and changed my mind completely. I've been using wikipedia as an absorbing way to manage my depression, and I suddenly stopped and wondered what exactly I'd be doing getting into mediation with someone I find frustrating and insulting (we wouldn't need mediation otherwise!). Perhaps someone else (and I agree, not you, you're doing enough!) will be motivated/interested enough to do it. But I'm going to take iridology off my watch list and stop contributing to it (and give the rest of wikipedia my TLC). That leaves it up to you and David to sort the article out, which doesn't seem very fair. Is there a good way to advertise the article to other people who may enjoy pitching in? I suppose there are plenty of contentious articles and not enough people with a vocation for sorting out squabbles.  ;) Anyway, I just wanted to let you know what I was up to, and to thank you for your general niceness and unflappable nature.  :) Fabiform 01:45, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Commencing mediation

I have been appointed your mediator. If you send me an email to (jheiskan "at" welho.com) we may start the mediation process in earnest. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 05:34, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

Theresa dear, the ratio of (your contributions to the iridology page) to (your cutting / fantazizing / detective / mediation work and stuff is becoming discouragingly low every day. You were on the border of precipice with your "helping" Wiki attitude and now you only made the great leap forward. Please go back to some decent activity. We are all losing time and you won't learn anything new in the process. Please remember that cutting out stuff from the talk page is ground for banning. Also please do not intervene when I answer to other people's questions, if you are not invited, and especially since, anyway, you only cut my answer which is addressed directly to you. Before mediation you can certainly use more articulation in your messages. TIA, Sincerely, irismeister 14:08, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)

To answer your question on my User page - yes, I still look at iridology. I think we can just ignore Mr. Meister and do what we think is best for the article - as when I reverted 19 edits (19!) that he had made in two hours. It's not worth our time to argue any more. Just ignore his comments, don't respond to anything. Eventually he'll get bored and go away. DavidWBrooks 15:58, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I hope so. theresa knott 16:26, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's kind of interesting to watch the series of edits currently being done, one every couple of minutes. The comments start fairly calm and the edits are pretty good - spelling errors, etc. - but he/she slowly gets worked up and starts hacking out anything at all critical and putting more CAPITALS into the comments. Psychologists would be fascinated. DavidWBrooks 18:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
LOL yes he does seem to be able to work himself into a fever. I find it particlaly strange that he attributes every single phrase to who ever is his object of fury at the time, whether they actually wrote that phrase or not. I don't have the time to check now, but i wouldn't be surprised if he didn't delete something he himself wrote originally with an all caps comment about how i'm an idiot for wring such drivel ;-)I've also noticed that he often stops editing for a while once someone else edits the article - strange as most users will argue their case. theresa knott 19:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Duh ! Get back to decent work, David and Theresa !

Kindly remind you too that we are into writing great Wiki articles, not talking in such an unprofessional way about psychology  : ) Especially concerning one of your Wiki fellows. Not good! Na na ! I reported this editing activity of yours, ranting and villifying endlessly about qualified authors. The only pattern, Theresa and David, I repeat, is that of ignorant editors stepping in, so self-important and busy as not to put a mirror in front of their nose, and see for themselves who edits what : ) I will NEVER get bored in search of truth, and if you two are going to disinform, put mediocre cut-and-paste (very badly copied) POVs and uncritical stuff (we can't call it judgement - than watch out, folks - it's war ! David, stop reverting without reading - you always get back to the wrong version. Read what you cut, read the title in the history section, read the documentation in the talk page. Then use judgement, not the revert button! Very carefully following you two from now on, irismeister 21:31, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)

Ah, I checked and see that you're right. Irismeister is the quack. It doesn't matter to my changes, though, what I had removed was probably something he wouldn't like me to remove anyway, which was the POV benefits section he had probably just edited at the time. Keep up the good work against the quacks and pseudoscientists! - Lord Kenneth 01:00, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Teresa. I gather that the midwife those 40-something years ago said something like "Mrs Tannin, it's a boy!" So far as I know, I still am. ;) Tannin

Cost is relevant ? OK How about this cost - 100,000 deaths per year in the USA only ?

While I welcome your coming back on the iridology page, I must remind you that complaints, sycophants, mediation etc., are not my main concern. Please understand this: incompetence is far more offensive than anything , including my friendly attitude towards incompetence , and incompetence in information is a possible killer. Lies kill, disinformation kills, and disinformation about medical issues has already killed in excess of 100,000 patients per year in the US only. Fighting incompetence and indeed an all-out war against disinformation has become mandatory for any follower of the Hippocratic oath and especially the primum non nocere "thing". Complain as you can, it's your prerogative. My job is to prevent incompetence and blatant liers to become mainstream. Lies are killers, my friend.

References

  • Jason Lazarou, Bruce H. Pomeranz and Paul N. Corey, "Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta analysis of prospective studies," Journal of American Medical Association, April 15, 1998, 279(15): 1200-05.
    This study found more than 100,000 deaths per year and 2,000,000 severe side effects in U.S. hospitals alone. However, this study did not include deaths from pharmaceutical drugs that occur outside the hospital, or deaths from prescription errors by doctors or pharmacists. Additionally, because 90-99 percent of all adverse drug reactions are never reported (see following reference), this figure should be adjusted substantially upwards.
  • David Kessler, " Introducing MedWatch: A new approach to reporting medication and device adverse effect and product problems," Journal of American Medical Association, July 2, 1993, 269(21): 2765-68.


Theresa, dear, the quack and pseudoscientist is back and ready for you when you are : ) irismeister 09:52, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

The false editor syndrome

Symptoms and Signs

being polite is awfully annoying at times. - DavidWBrooks 16:56, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) Politeness is a form of excess, mister David W Brooks. It is necessary. Excess of irrelevance is not necessary : )

"Eventually he'll get bored and go away. DavidWBrooks 15:58, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)"
Psychologists would be fascinated. DavidWBrooks 18:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I find it particlaly strange... theresa knott 19:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Comments

The plague of terrestrial Israel has always been false, self-fulfilling prophecy, dear Ms Theresa Knott and mister David W Brooks! Look: "Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. " (Mt 24:11) "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1Jo 4:1). Now corroborate with this:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." (Mt 7:15).
Sincerely, irismeister 12:56, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)