User talk:CorticoSpinal/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, CorticoSpinal! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

User name

Thanks for getting a user name, and for signing. Congrats. -- Fyslee / talk 05:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

your edit did not completely match your edit summary

You deleted cited material agreed upon by consensus and then replaced it with different text.[1] Please explain. Quack Guru 03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is majority consensus that the contemporary view be included, and you would seemingly agree since you are in favour of adding 'reform' chiropractors into the school of thought subsection. Reform chiropractors are indeed contemporary chiropractors, so I don't follow your logic. EBDCM (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For example, you have a pattern of deleting references. Quack Guru 05:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, if you read my edits, by and large I add MANY references all of which are MORE RECENT and academically robust from scholarly sites or peer-reviewed research.

You edits, on the other hand... EBDCM (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But you still deleted references without explanantion. Quack Guru 17:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

GQ, I took out some dated and weak references and provided newer ones that are more robust. Such is the nature of scientific inquiry.

The references were not weak and that is not a reason to also delete the content and replace it with something else. Quack Guru 19:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind giving me your scientific credentials, I might be better to assess your credibility. However, based on the majority of your references and your ties to SB it seems that you're simply politicking right now. You also deleted my message to you on your talk page claiming it to be a personal attack when it was a simple note asking if you were editing in good faith. Hard to believe so when you call yourself quack guru.

QuackGuru's credentials are irrelevant. We don't assess edits based on the credentials of the editors. We assess the edits based on the edits. That is why we need reliable sources to help us assess the edits. Removing referenced material should be done with care and should usually be discussed. If you have a dispute, you should explain why you believe that material is not sufficiently relevant to the topic to be worthy of mention. If you have a good enough reason and you are able to explain it properly, then likely other editors will agree with you and you will achieve WP:Consensus. You will not achieve consensus by dismissing other editors because their credentials aren't good enough for you. Also you seem to have misunderstood AGF. QuackGuru obviously has a POV, as do you and me. There is nothing wrong with that. Editors should always do their best to put their POV aside when editing. That said, even if an editor fails to put aside their POV when editing, it doesn't mean they aren't acting in good faith. In fact, very often such people may be acting in good faith, they seriously believe they are improving the encylopaedia, they just aren't because they are not able to put their POV aside. The best example of people who are not acting in good faith is vandals. Someone who repeatedly comes to a page and adds "GEORGE W BUSH SUCKS BALLS" is probably not acting in good faith, they are not trying to improve the encylopaedia. Also, dismissing someone because of their views is definitely a personal attack. I suggest you take a look at WP:NPA Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Hello. Regarding the activity on the chiropractic article: I've blocked Mccready (talk · contribs) for edit-warring, taking into account his history. However, you're also engaged in edit-warring. You're right at 3 reverts, by my count, with several additional borderline edits in the past 24 hours. I'm going to ask that you back off and slow down on the reverting. If there is really a consensus against Mccready's edit, then others will also revert him - there's no rush. I would strongly suggest limiting yourself to 1 revert per day, voluntarily, for at least the next week or two. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic article

Hey, EBDCM -

It looks like my edit to Chiropractic and your note on my talk page sailed past each other in the night; I already edited that sentence.

My concern, right now, is with the very vague word "some." The assertion that "some" chiropractors reject subluxation is inarguably true, but it has the potential to be misleading. I don't know if the words "a few" or "most" or "a sizeable minority" or "a large majority" would be better - I'm having a lot of trouble finding a reliable source on that question. My impression is that "some" should stay, but only until we're confident enough to replace it.

Like I said on the Chiro talk page: if you have a suggestion that isn't a revert of someone else's edit, by all means, please be bold and make it. --Hyperbole (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent comment on my talk page, I'm aware there has been a "paradigm shift" in chiropractics, but I don't know its scope - questions like "what proportion of countries are undergoing it," "what proportion of chiropractors are undergoing it," and "when did it start and is it still ongoing." And in order to report on that paradigm shift in the article, we're really going to need reliable sources that detail it for us. Do you know of any such sources? --Hyperbole (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=190012163 There are 2, 3, or 4 groups? Please provide a reference. Should we delete the reformers bit or leave it in the article. Quack Guru 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Analgesic effects of Acupuncture

Not sure if any of this helps you, but at the very least I thought you might be interested:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Warmest, -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this is typical. He'll ask for a sci study but then he'll find some flaw according to his own wisdom but he won't see any prob with wickedly poor "research" as long as it supports him pov. Just wanted to give you a heads up to save you the headache. :) --Hughgr (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tirade on Chirotalk

Please desist from personal abuse. You've been asked many times. Please format your contributions properly. You may wish to do so on this one [6]. You have yet to provide the evidence I asked for. Mccready (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mccready, for the umteenth time, I'm not abusing you. I have just shredded your argument that's all. I asked you a question and you keep dodging it: how can you claim to be scientific and yet deny any existence of scientific chiropractic and acupuncture? Even other CAM skeptics have suggested that you've gone too far. I agree with them.

Goodnight. EBDCM (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talkpage. And I have indented again for you. Will you please remember to do this? Mccready (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring on Doctor of Chiropractic

Will you please revert your revert. I gave good reasons in my edit summary. You have not addressed these reasons. I will expand on them for you. The material deleted was repeated, albeit in a slightly different form, on the main chiro page. You know as well as I do that that material is subject to an ongoing POV discussion and the issues are not yet settled. It is thus wrong of you to attempt to reinsert it. A link to the chiro article will serve just as well and avoid making wikipedia look ridiculous by having two or more different definitions of chiro on various pages. Mccready (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagreed with your revert and before you arrived on the scene that article was stable as well. You have an ongoing history of destabilizing articles. The edit you made altered what was previously a NPOV. I suggest that before you continue editing and being subjected to many reverts by various editors that you gain some kind of consensus first in Talk Pages. EBDCM (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

replied on talkpage. Please desist from uncivil remarks. And this is about the seventh time I've reminded you to indent, and gone back and indented for you with colons. It helps to see clearly the discussion. Please do so in future. Mccready (talk)

Mccready, I'm still learning the ropes regarding formatting and am trying my best to make my comments as easy readable as possible. I will reply to you on the talk page. EBDCM (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

please discuss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#copyright_violation There are issues surrounding the information you added to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Chiropractic and your complaints about QuackGuru

I've archived your complaint, [7], as inappropriate for the article talk page per WP:TALK. Please take it to an appropriate venue, such as WP:EAR or perhaps WP:ANI. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your complaints appear to be mostly about WP:COI issues, so I'd try WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru can be extremely difficult to get along with, so it's best to focus on discussing edits rather than editors. You've tried discussing your concerns on his talk page and he obviously isn't interested in continuing those discussions there. While I've suggested WP:COIN as a good place to take your dispute, WP:DR is the policy for handling disputes, so you should look there before following my suggestion. --Ronz (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[8] I have filed a report at a noticeboard. Feel free to comment at the board. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you read and comment there. Failing to comment can be detrimental to your future reputation here. This is a golden opportunity to show you can learn. -- Fyslee / talk 06:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked for the incident report and could not find it in the link you provided. If it was a typo please resend it as I would like to at least defend myself and state my case regarding GQs accusation. Thanks in advance! EBDCM (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll find it here in the archives. Noticeboard stuff gets archived pretty quickly. -- Fyslee / talk 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, defending yourself too strongly might not be a good idea. An apology and promise to do better, including listening to more experienced users (especially Dematt), would serve you better. (Not that QG is totally innocent....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 07:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you say: thanks for reverting the true vandalism Please do not accuse editors of vandalizing Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is there for all to see, QG. I accused no one. Facts shall rule the day. Goodnight. EBDCM (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits on vertebral subluxation

Thank you for your edits on vertebral subluxation. Unfortunately they were not accompanied by reliable sources. On wikipedia it is not sufficient to write from your personal knowledge without backing that up with reliable sources. Will you please refrain from editing the article while the community considers your recent series of edits. I'm sure you will acknowledge that there may be different views to your own which need to be considered if we are to improve the article. Mccready (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mccready,

I will provide all the references within a few days. I do have them. This wiki needs major cleanup and simplification, just like our work on the main wiki. I hope to work with you constructively on this one and I will present all POV. Like you, I am a skeptic of the VSC which is a unique perspective considering I am a DC. I am editing in good faith and seek only to improve the quality and flow of the article. References will be forthcoming, I promise. EBDCM (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just added colons so your comment was indented properly. Please start doing this. It's extremely irritating when you fail to indent properly. Also please stop referring to articles as "wikis". This whole place is Wikipedia, which is one wiki. The articles are articles, not individual "wikis". It's confusing when you call them wikis. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally do that, too. Please feel free to correct me when I forget to indent properly. (They don't do it at CZ) -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

I haven't looked extensively into your contribs but I am deeply concerned about what I have heard. I would strongly suggest you read WP:Copyvio, Wikipedia:Copyrights and WP:Plagiarism. It is not acceptable to copy large sections of text from other copyrighted sourced into wikipedia and copyright violations are a very serious thing. If you do want to quote an author, this should be done minimally (usually not more than a sentence or two) and it should be made clear it is a quotation (by using quotation marks and sourcing the information; e.g. According to Bill Gates the author of the study, "Windows is the best OS in the world".). You should only quote an author when it is absolutely necessary, this will usually be when you are mentioning the opinion of the author/s, otherwise the information should be paraphrased and re-written in your own words. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; but the issue in question was rectified with better formatting. The section in question was properly referenced although significant lobbying has been done to remove it (potentially because it negates their personal beliefs). Regardless, experienced editors who have looked into the situation have assured me that edit in question was within the rules. I appreciate your concern and am working at learning the various ins and outs at wikipedia. Cheers. EBDCM (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[9] There are WP:COPYVIO concerns about the recent text you added to Wikipedia. Did you copy paste text from the website. Please discuss. QuackGuru (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

QG, there is no copyvio issues. All the material was cited properly. It's no different than your edits. This copyvio is a bogus claim and it's simply a red herring to distract the real issue here which is why cited material from the WHO, Spine, JAMA and other journals was tagged as vandalism by yourself, OrangeMarlin and Arthur Rubin. EBDCM (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing text with a reference does not change the facts. I will ask you one more time. Did you cut and paste text from any website. Please be honest and answer the question specifically. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The "fact" is QG is the edited I made were fully referenced and supported. The bigger question is; how come you flip-flopped on chiropractic talk supporting the edits in question and now oppose them along with your brigade of OM and AR? EBDCM (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the controversial edit before and explained on the talk page I did not support the recent additions by the IP.[10] Please provide your evidence of a flip-flop. I think you are mistaken. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing to vaccine controversy

Hi EBDCM. With regard to your edits today to vaccine controversy, you seem to be engaged in a bit of an edit-war there regarding a quote from D.D. Palmer and some other issues. Wikipedia discourages edit-warring in general, and the 3-revert rule sets out an "electric fence" insisting that no one revert more than 3 times in a day. The 3 reverts are an upper limit, though, and any edit-warring is generally bad. Looking over your edits to vaccine controversy, a strict interpretation of the policy would suggest you've already gone up to 4 reverts. Even with a looser reading, you're right up against the 3-revert rule. Please slow down and give it at least a day or so before reverting any further. The other editors on the article are reasonable and I don't think anyone's out to make chiropractic look bad; try addressing your concerns on the talk page instead of via edit summary. I'm not going to do anything at this juncture, but further reverting would make you liable to a block. Take a break and move to the talk page to raise your concerns. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell. I will do so. I realized I was getting close to the 3RR and was hoping it wouldn't go that far. I appreciate your suggestions and will implement them. EBDCM (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

EBDCM, following MastCell's post you promised to implement his advice. Yet the very next day, on the very same topic within chiro you reverted another editor. Your edit statement said "The previous edit by Dematt seemed to have consensus and being NPOV whereas your major edit does not. Please gain consensus on talk page before completely changing the edit in question. Thanks!)" You should have known quite well that this was still a highly controversial revert by yourself. There was NOT consensus as your possibly weaselword "seemed" would seem to indicate you knew. In you edit statemnet you suggested that consensus should be achieved before edits are made. Exactly. I'm sure you weren't meaning to be hypocritical, but I'm also sure that you can see you leave yourself open to such an interpretation. In future you should allow at least 24 hours and ideally 48 hours before performing such controversial reverts. Thank you for your cooperation. And like we say, no-one is out to get chiro. We all just want a factual NPOV article. Mccready (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That was my one, and only revert that day Mccready which was in line with Mastcell's recommendations. I have read on here that Dematt is a well respected editor and is very knowledgeable about the chiropractic article. So, based on that, and that I found his edit to be more NPOV is why I made the revert. EBDCM (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you denying your revert was controversial? Mccready (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When editing a controversial article like chiropractic undoubtedly some edits will be perceived as controversial, despite the fact the editor is doing so in good faith. I considered Eubulides original edit controversial reverted it, and he reverted mine. We'll find something in the middle somewhere. You wrote "Please gain consensus on talk page before completely changing the edit in question" and I would agree, but will remind you that you either forgotten this yourself a few times or have taken a very liberal interpretation of it although your tone as of late has definitely improved. EBDCM (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Hi EBDCM, I just wanted to let you know that I think you have improved significantly in the last few days. I think you'll find that if you respect other POVs, others will respect yours and ultimately we will end up with a NPOV article. Thanks for your help. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In spite of the often inevitable beginner problems you have encountered, I second Dematt's comment. You have a positive learning curve, and that tendency will serve you very well here. As Dematt can attest, I can work fine even with people who hold opposing POV, as long as there is a collaborative spirit. You and I actually share a number of POV, so that should make it even easier. Keep up the good work, but don't pause or fall back into old habits. Step back from any "warrior" stances and think twice before pushing that "Save page" button. (I speak from bitter experience and wish I always remembered to do that! We're all learning here.) Nice to have you onboard. -- Fyslee / talk 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, your doing great! And as Fyslee said, think twice before hitting save. Numerous times I've decided not to comment on something even tho the editor in question is making a comment thats... well... just bad. :) Keep up the good work! --Hughgr (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think you are doing a fantastic job. . . keep up the good work!TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. 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! --SineBot (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I generally have been doing that; but sometimes have forgotten, but sometimes have done so and my signature has not come up! EBDCM (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If only the time stamp comes up, then it's because five tildes were used. That might be an explanation. -- Fyslee / talk 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Diversified

A tag has been placed on Diversified requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gary King (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

smacks point

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&curid=197022&diff=194254981&oldid=194251405

Your edit was unconstructive and deleted quality references needed to verify the text. Consider NPOV. Please refrain from making such edits again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit failed to seek consensus despite numerous reverts by other editors. Please gain agreement on Talk page first as per the rest of the editors for major edits. Thanks. EBDCM (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit on Chiropractic

Your edit on Chiropractic wasn't bad; Modalities is a good word to describe it: [11]; the problem is that there is whole 'nother article which is called Chiropractic treatment techniques....I don't want people visiting this article to be confused so I made these edits as a compromise: [12] and here: [13]--Trulexicon (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me! EBDCM (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome I'm trying to make the Chiropratic article a bit easier to read...its very hard on the eyes...--Trulexicon (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2008

(UTC)

It's quite the contentious article with land mines everywhere! We're doing our best to keep it at a high standard but there's always a few skeptics who try to mass edit things with questionable citations there is nowhere even in the ballpark of WP:MEDRS. If you stick around you'll see trends and know what I'm talking about. If you're decent at HTML could you make a text box around the philosopy points at the end (holism, conservatism, manual/biopsychosocial). It looks jumbly to me (but the content it good). EBDCM (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Was just looking at some of the refs in the chiro article and noticed this: By 1995, chiropractors had gained hospital privileges at more than 100 hospitals.. Thought it might help with an edit you were trying to add.--Hughgr (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with WP:3RR limit at the chiropractic article. You seem to revert anything you don't personally like. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a questioning of reverting what I don't like, it's a matter of the size of the edit, it's controversy, and if it has gained consensus. If I have to get a block for maintaining, what I objectively feel in the best interest of the article (and to a greater extent the wikipedia project) then so be it. I'm not here for pizza and fairy tales. I have a full time job. I know it's rough waters here and am beginning to appreciate some of the perversions and politics at wikipedia but I'm here to provided balanced education on primarily CAM topics for the world to learn about. The research is out there now, and it needs a voice and I intent to provide it. EBDCM (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification

I know you may already read this, but officially I apparently have to put this block of text on your talk page:

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please spare me the theatrics, quack guru. Your edits consistently get reverted because they are weak; both in the written word and the citations you use. The majority of your references are from layman internet cites and you keep trying to push Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch as reputable sources when the rest of us counter with peer-reviewed primary and secondary sources. Also, the half decent references you do you are ancient with better, more current and stronger literature that refutes the claims you make. This attempt here to portray me as some vandal and bad editor is seems like a desperate attempt to get me blocked or banned because I have generally being a strong contributor to the chiropractic article which goes against your personal POV (hence the quack guru, right?). Anyways, please desist from spamming my talk page any further and your history here at wikipedia speaks for itself and I'll let the admins decide whether or not your nefarious claims have any merit (they don't). EBDCM (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

QG

I would suggest that you not continue adding comments to QG's talk. It could be viewed as harassment and I take a dim view of that. If you want to discuss my block action, do it on my talk please. Vsmith (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert-war on my talk page again. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

please respect NPOV

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Chiropractic appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.[14] QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for the welcome, Quack Guru. As always, I strive to bring high editing, writing and referencing standards that comes from reliable, valid, notable and preferably peer-reviewed research (meta-analyses when possible). The revert in question has to do with an ongoing discussion regarding safety which many involved editors are trying to come to a consensus. Nevertheless, it is inappropriate to make a mass edit to a controversial section when there in an ongoing effort to come up with text that is suitable to all parties. I hope that you will refrain from adding the edit in question (again) until all parties have reached an agreement. EBDCM (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

alternative accounts

Quick question. Is the anon and the two separate accounts the same person. If so, I recommend you edit with only one account. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The 208 (IP address) occurs when my EBDCM account times out and I have not noticed that I am not logged in. I have already told admin MastCell of a previous account that is no longer being used and he is aware of it, so no sock puppetry is in play. I stand by all my edits and use only my account. Thanks for asking for clarification first, but I had already mentioned this to admins to avoid these accusations and confusion. EBDCM (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask Mr. Guru, that you refrain from "outing" users by using real identities as per proper wikipedia policy. The person in question has relocated to another province, however my initials M (for Martin) on 208 is indeed me and is simply when I have been logged out due to time. EBDCM (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. McDougall

He wrote several books in the early 90's and held seminars. I followed his vegan diet for quite a while. (lost weight, felt great...and hungry!) His website is glossy and it looks like he sells DVDs and stuff. He is still researching the effect of diet on heart disease, autoimmune disease and the like and trying to popularize his ideas. He used to be on the radio in my area.CynRN —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynRN (talk • contribs) 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC) http://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletter/may_june2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynRN (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are being discussed

Here.[15] Anthon01 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And here.[16] QuackGuru (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

There is substantial and convincing evidence at this thread. Your response to the evidence was combative and made me feel that a block was necessary to protect the project from disruption. Please only return to edit areas where you are willing to cooperate with other editors in building a high quality encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not for ideological struggle.

To any administrator reviewing this block, please read the evidence and response carefully before making a decision. Jehochman ^Talk 19:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Heavy handed response not in line with precedents for first blocks; disagree editing was disruptive. EBDCM (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your behavior in directly confronting other editors has been out of line with the WP:NPA policy and this block seems fully justified. Based on the amount of incivility shown, I don't see why it wasn't indefinite. When the block expires, do not make any more personal comments about editors — Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

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

It's unfortunate that such myopia exists here without proper context. Regardless I shall wait. EBDCM (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Subjective Block without Due Process; Sideline editing

“ [I]oppose giving admins extra powers to define users as disruptive according to subjective opinion. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC) ”

Agreed with Coppertwig on this front. Admin Jericho32 did not comment on my response to Eubulides whom I personally consider disruptive as well, which I rebutted on MastCell talk page raising many valid points regarding edits by a medical doctor who wants to single handedly rewrite the entire chiropractic article citing MEDICAL journals when CHIROPRACTIC journals and publications easily rebut the very biased research articles that Eubulides to the table.

In response to the heavy handed block which consisted of 0 talk (and did not even provide a response to my rebuttal of Eubulides, MD, who's edits are severely flawed and critiqued by every chiropractic editor with the exception of quack guru, I will edit here from the sidelines and post editorial critiques so that when this unjustifiably LONG block ends we can resume this contentious, although important, debate:

Proposed safety text including talk modifications:

Spinal manipulation, the most common modality in chiropractic care, has been increasingly studied in recent years as critics and proponents debate the merits of its efficacy and safety. Spinal manipulation has generally regarded is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of various mechanical low back pain syndromes.[18][62][63][64] [65][66] Cervical spine manipulation (particularly the upper cervical spine) has been a source of controversy. Critics have suggested that spinal manipulation is of limited benefit and a risk factor for vertebral basilar stroke and there needs to be more research to support its use whereas chiropractors have countered that cervical manipulation is a safe, effective and cost-effective alternate to conventional medical management for mechanical back and neck pain syndromes. [67][29][68][26][27][69][29][30] Spinal manipulation poses a slight risk to the practitioner, particularly to the wrists, shoulder, and lumbar spine which may occur during the 'orientation' phase and the dynamic thrust phase of manipulation although these risk has not been quantified.[60]

Spinal manipulation is a regulated/controlled medical intervention and can only be performed by chiropractors and a limited number of physical medicine professionals.[citation needed] Prior to the adminstration of spinal manipulative therapy, absolute contraindications must be screened out. These include inflammatory arthritides, fractures, dislocations, instabilities, bone weakening disorders, tumours, infections, acute trauma as well as various circulatory and neurological disorders. Although most contraindications apply only to spinal manipulation of the affected region, a few emergency conditions, such as visual field defects is an absolute contraindication spinal manipulative therapy. [57] In February 2008, the World Health Organization sponsored Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders, the largest and most comprehensive study on neck pain, diagnosis, prognosis and safety to date. This included a consensus of the top experts in the world whose findings were collated using a best-evidence synthesis, which addresses risk, prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment risks and benefits.[70] With respect to the association of VBA stroke and cervical manipulation the study concluded:

Vertebrobasilar artery stroke is a rare event in the population. There is an association between vertebrobasilar artery stroke and chiropractic visits in those under 45 years of age. There is also an association between vertebrobasilar artery stroke and use of primary care physician visits in all age groups. no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care. The increased risks of vertebrobasilar artery stroke associated with chiropractic and physician visits is likely explained by patients with vertebrobasilar dissection-related neck pain and headache consulting both chiropractors and primary care physicians before their VBA stroke."[71]

A 2007 study which examined over 50 000 chiropractic spinal manipulations had no reports of serious adverse effects. The most common minor side effect was pain in the head, neck, arm or upper back; and stiffness of the neck, shoulder which occurred after, at worst, 16 in 1,000 (0.016%) treatments. Furthermore, the authors concluded that the risk of serious adverse effects was, at worst, 6 per 100,000 (0.006%) spinal manipulations. Despite the controversy and skepticism regarding chiropractic spinal manipulation, the World Health Organization states that "[when] employed skilfully and appropriately, chiropractic care is safe and effective for the prevention and management of a number of health problems."[56]

Interestingly enough, since my block both Eubulides, MD, and Quack Guru have gone on a solo, wild-spree, which was my fear if there was not an important counter-balance to edits on safety provided by a medical doctor who's edits could easily be interpreted as fear mongering (Eubulides has not replied to my concern regarding this fear mongering for close to 2 weeks now). EBDCM (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I am away and unable to edit, it has become apparent that Eubulides agenda is to unilaterally present biased medical papers that question the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of spinal manipulation and chiropractic. Thelitics here at wikipedia are truly abhorrent and there appears to be a randomness and an overwhelming subjectiveness as to who is labelled as disruptive. Although I will admit I probably deserved a 24 hour block, a 7 day long one without 0 discussion despite the fact I provided a complete rebuttal to Eubulides, MD claims demonstrates a rather poor decision making algorhythm (if any) that is completely random (i.e. should have a jury of 5 not tied to the article/profession) in any way and a public process should be done where the accused gets to explain). This judge, jury, excutioner BS of a system is completely lame. EBDCM (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As further proof of uncollaborative editing by Eubulides, he has restored 1/2 of the strikeouts of his edits without sufficient justification. It should also be noted that the restored text was disagreed with my a majority of editors which provides more proof that Eubulides' edits and his intent is questionable. When a majority of editors talk through a point, justify their strikeout/concerns and it is restored by a single individual this is an example of paternalistic behaviour. All the points raised by myself and others concerning editor Eubulides with respect to his edits on the chiropractic article are indeed still playing out and hopefully other editors will see this trend and call him on it. EBDCM (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides is further engaging in more fast paced editing removing a section on safety towards chiropractors which I oppose. See you in 5 days, Eubulides! EBDCM (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides claims that there are many POV in chiropractic according to his list however everything he wants deleted is always a source that supports the efficacy of chiropractic care, in some way shape or form. Furthermore, as a medical doctor, Eubulides' edits and his intention behind them are deplorable and his claims of POV are either grossly exaggerated or without merit. EBDCM (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making these personal attacks against Eubulides on this talk page. You should be aware that continuing to do so violates Wikipedia policy.

From WP:NPA:*"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is never acceptable as you do above, using Eubulides's status as an MD against him.

From WP:USERPAGE: you may not have Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. on your userpage.

Please stop this line of material, and return to editing articles. Let administrators deal with problematic editors, and stop making yourself the kind of editor an administrator is likely to notice. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, Jayron. I'm not using Eubulides affiliations against him. I'm merely stating a fact. His edits are not good are are severely biased AGAINST chiropractic including unilaterally deciding what is an acceptable reference and how it is to be used. Just like how you've unilaterally blocked me without proper discussion especially with the points raised on MastCell's talk page. Regardless, all the points I raised above are valid and one needs only to look at the talk history to see how Eubulides and Quack Guru have seized the day and implement their agenda of fear mongering edits and having a double standard with respect to the chiropractic article. If I can make a formal complaint I'd love to do it because I had been intending to do so until Eubulides sneak attack to admin MastCell (whom I owe an apology). EBDCM (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't unilaterally block you at all. Another user did that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are complicit in these actions by failing to acknowledge my rebuttal on MastCell's talk page. This shows a lack of due dilligence and investigation in your part which is why the unblocking request mechanism is so dysfunctional. There is no consensus agreement, no chance for adequate discussion re: disruptive behaviour, etc. No point in continuing this conversation though; there is too much subjectivity involved with many admins, as alluded to by Coppertwig.

Eubulides, along with Quack Guru and now Mccready appear ready for their complete tear down of chiropractic. Interestingly, all sources provided from Eubulides comes from medical journals rather than chiropractic journals (peer reviewed, of course) which is being used to fear monger with respect to safety. Also notice how Eubulides is slowly, but surely striking out all mention of any contrast with medical contrast. Also, after a long debate on philosophy which Eubulides agreed to move Janse to medical opposition he now wants it taken out altogether after his compromise. Yet another example of questionable editing by this particular editor who IMO has been way more disruptive to chiropractic than my own edits on arrival on the wiki chiropractic scene. EBDCM (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Due to the relentless stream of personal attacks you have been making on this page,[17][18][19], in spite of warnings to stop,[20][21][22] and your apparent intent to harass and edit war with other editors,[23] I have increased your block to indefinite. This step is necessary to protect Wikipedia and other editors from further disruption. If you would like to edit again, you need to show (not just say) that you will notengage in battles, personal attacks and violations of neutral point of view and decorum. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, this is beyond bogus. I am free to comment on edits. This type of conduct from yourself is completely disgraceful and I DEMAND that an admin panel look in this matter. What you are doing here is tantamount to extreme censorship. What a joke! EBDCM (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly a sad turn of events. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeho; I've done a bit of researching and I would like mention that this block and now the indefinite one is completely unjustified according to past precedents and there was no WP:MEDIATION done prior to my blocking. Furthermore, for the 4th time, I had provided a rebuttal to Eubulides' concerns on MastCell's talk page which I explained my actions and provided context to my disagreements with Eubulides. As a relatively new Wikipedian, I am very perplexed and now skeptical of the seeming randomness of blocking users. QuackGuru and Mccready, for example, are recidivists in that they have been blocked or banned multiple times, and subsequent blocks have lasted a matter of hours if not a few day. Yet my first ever receives an indefinite block and my comments are factual and not personal attacks; if anything it's a play-by-play what is happening on Chiropractic Talk. EBDCM (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me interject a few things. When I saw Eubulides' post on my talk page, I was inclined to give you a fairly strong warning - because you had stepped pretty far over the line in terms of incivility and personally targeted rhetoric - and leave things at that. I referred the case to Jehochman because you had expressed concern about possible bias on my part. I was a bit suprised by the 1-week block, but I also believe that if this probation is ever going to be effective, admins need some degree of discretion and so I didn't (and don't) oppose it, though it's not what I would have done. It's a sad fact that blocks tend to make people angrier. That's certainly happened here.

I see this taking a really unproductive turn and I forsee major problems if you remain as incensed as you currently appear to be and return to editing these pages. I also don't want to see you indefinitely blocked, because I think you're at bottom a good-faith contributor with useful expertise and an interest in improving these pages. It's hard when you start out - I used to be quite a bit more... frank than I am now when I was new, and I didn't start in a war zone. I would agree that there are more disruptive agents about, but that doesn't really have a bearing on your conduct. Unfortunately, consistency is a virtue that Wikipedia notoriously lacks. I'm afraid that unblocking you right now would lead to some deeply unproductive exchanges.

Can I ask you to take a short break, stop watching the articles and following Eubulides et al.'s edits, and focus on something else other than Wikipedia for a few days? And think about how to achieve what you want to achieve here. It takes quite a bit of Zen detachment to edit an article like chiropractic - I'm not interested in jumping in there, and I can imagine you feel more strongly than I do about the subject. I'll touch base with Jehochman about the block. I'd encourage you to touch base with Dematt as he is a role model for many of us and a fount of good advice. Let's revisit this in a few days. MastCell ^Talk 05:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

When EBDCM understands how to interact, and when they retract the legal threat a couple posts above, feel free to unblock them, Mastcell. I work this a lot of incorrigible editors who eventually get banned. A commonality is that they were all coddled early on and did not have strict limits set. Hopefully EBDCM will come to understand where the line is and learn not to cross it so that they can return to productive editing. Jehochman ^Talk 11:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally, some kind of answer to my question. Thank you MastCell. I owe you an apology; I jumped the gun when I suggested that it might not be a good idea for you to oversee Eubulides complaint. In fairness though; I had not seen the discussion on CAM which you raised valid points on both sides of the fence and were very neutral and objective about the matter. Had I known of this I would not have requested another admin look after the case. Jeho, I retracted my statement above; but in the future I would ask that you provide much better clarification for your actions and at least have some kind of discussion or a process of mediation before you throw down the hammer; especially in blocks over 72 hours. So, I will unplug from the project until Saturday and I look forward to resuming productive editing and collaboration. Aloha! EBDCM (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's boring without you, EBDCM! Just don't let anyone push your buttons. I'll be glad when you are back.CynRNCynRN (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As always Cyndy, I'm sure we will have a lively engagement. There have been some good edits and questionable ones during the past week although I do have some big concerns regarding some safety and vaccination stuff, in particular the weight issue. It seems that you and I are most editors at chiropractic can find the middle ground. I'm waiting to hear from MastCell and Jehochman as to where we go from here. Looking back on it, I made some mistakes but I believe that this blocking issue could have been better handled as well. Hopefully all parties involved learned a lesson. See you soon. EBDCM (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite Block Review

Jehochman, MastCell

As per your recommendations, I have a) removed statements pertaining to legal action and b) have taken a Wikibreak. I would like to begin the process now for reinstatement. EBDCM (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I could unblock you on condition that you not rush straight back to the article where you were in conflict with other editors. Will you agree to edit different topics for at least a week or two, and avoid any sort of personal conflict with those editors? I understand they might do something to provoke a conflict. If that happens, rather than responding to them, you would ask an uninvolved administrator for assistance. On those conditions I would unblock you. Do you agree? Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To be frank Jehochman, my main purpose and interest here is to edit chiropractic and anything related to physical/manual medicine. It is my specialization and where I the most expertise in my 8 years of university. Also, we are in the midst of a major review/cleanup of the chiropractic article and I had been an integral part of this process since Jan 08. Ironically, before Eubulides brought his concerns to MastCell I was wondering where to go for my concerns. Also, I'm not very good at using html formatting stuff and cannot organize my case as well as other experienced wikipedians which puts me at a disadvantage right off the bat. Lastly, what is the protocol when someone complains for a block? Should the accused not be called into discuss the case and present their side? That kind of system would seem to be much more beneficial than what occured in my case. Lastly, just because an editor does well editing certain pages does not mean that the editing style made on a different page, such as chiropractic will fly. I have very serious concerns regarding how an editor can unilaterally decide what the best study is, what gets to stay and rejected (despite concerns from other editors) and how something should get written. I have a few friends who are pursuing their PhD degrees and I have taken a few research courses in university too and know how to critically evaluate the literature. I very much resent the fact that someone can call a reference "weak" when myself and others know it far surpasses the criteria for verifiability. I feel that a lot of very good citations are being omitted on technicalities and there is some good, high quality chiropractic literature that is being stamped out.

Now that Dematt is back on the scene (I trust his judgment) I think that things will go much more smoothly. I will raise my concerns on talk and if it comes to a stalemate I suppose we can always ask for arbitration of it gets that far. It seems, by and large, we have some good editors there and hopefully we can avoid stepping on a chiropractic land mine! EBDCM (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

For content disputes, use Wikipedia:Mediation. You are unblocked (in a moment). Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you.

Unsolicited advice: if you find yourself frustrated with a specific editor, take a step back. There are lots of editors active on these pages, so it's not like things have to degenerate into hand-to-hand combat. Ask for outside opinions, get outside input, and so forth. There's no deadline - a major article like chiropractic is not going to get irretrievably better or worse in a few days, so sometimes it's useful to not respond for a day or two and see what other people contribute. There may be editors about who are motivated primarily by a desire to make chiropractic look bad, but I can virtually guarantee that Eubulides is not one of them. If you start name-calling, making personal accusations, and so forth, then even if you're right you'll end up looking silly at best. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, MastCell. PC-ness is not a strong suite of mine (I'd rather just get down to the bare bones and spare the fluff so we can get to the point) and prior to this event I had really, really been patient with most of my language. It's tough when you have an editor who acts as a judge, jury and executioner especially with referencing. That's my purpose here for chiropractic, bring on the scientific references to take this article from the stone age and to present a more current version of the profession circa 2008. For example, this chiropractic database (http://www.chiroindex.org/#results) yields many papers from peer-reviewed chiropractic journals that are not indexed in PubMed. Consequently, according to current MEDRS standards these papers do not meet inclusion criteria. I would never bring "weak" chiro literature/journals to to article (for example, articles from Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research) but there are some quality journals that are not indexed but do have very reliable, valid and appropriate content.

I strongly resent having a "secondary source" such as Ernst (1 person) published in a medical journal for example trump an executive task force report on neck pain (that is written by a multidiscplinary panel with the involvement of 100+ universities and public health agencies or the original Cassidy et al. study that were 6+ years in the making. When Ernst, for example, is given 2-3 lines in safety and task force 1, you can see where I start to question editorial intent; especially if the editor comes off as being highly educated in appraising literature and weighing it in a fair manner. Anyways, I found this dialogue between you and I to be constructive and again apologize for questioning your ability to neutrally and objectively handle this case. You are a good admin MastCell and it seems that the years of editing has led to some wisdom in terms of approaching certain contentious issues. I hope to follow in the same footsteps; it probably would have been easier had I chosen a less contentious career ;) Regardless, as good faith I will not edit tonight and will turn to you for advice before things escalate again. 208.101.89.150 (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A note about you

I started a discussion about you on the chiropractic page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.45.230 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Whom am I replying to? What do you feel needs to be discussed? Perhaps we can do it here, as it would be a more appropriate venue. EBDCM (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Practice styles and PPC

Yes, I think PPC would be a good source for practice styles and would welcome changes based on that. I used it in the comments in Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 16 #Lead; look for the comment containing the string "PSC approach" and for the comment containing the string "two much smaller groups". My main qualm about PPC is that it is a bit dated; much of the text that it uses to talk about practice styles was written several years ago, so for example it refers to NACM as if it still existed as a viable organization. This datedness is understandable in a long-leadtime textbook but it's something to watch out for.

You can read snatches of PPC in Google Books, if it's not available in your local library. Eubulides (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic 3RR warning

I can't find a specific, formal 3RR warning in your history, so here it is.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chiropractic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

However, if you've been using the IP address 64.25.184.27 (talk · contribs), as has been reported to me a private E-mail, your indef block should be reinstated for WP:SOCK violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not been using that IP address and those claims are unfounded. Accusing me of this is completely disingenious and is slander. Please apologize. EBDCM (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EBDCM filed, and I'll comment on your WP:LEGAL threat on WP:ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a petty attempt at trying to discredit a good contributor. Nice try, Arthur. I made no such threats, I asked that you not say I was using a sock puppet. EBDCM (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find evidence of anyone accusing you of being a good contributor. I can find evidence of you being accused of WP:LEGAL and WP:NPA violations, although the previous WP:LEGAL violation seems to have been deleted, rather than merely withdrawn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read this before commenting again. If I inadvertently broke a policy violation under legal then I am sorry; however your accusations of sockpuppetry and the canvassing that is behind it is not in good taste nor is it factual. EBDCM (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems more of the same WP:BITE from the anti-chiropractic users who want to effectively muzzle my contributions which are of a high quality and always provide good, reliable references. EBDCM (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not a new editor. One could make a case that anyone who can quote WP:BITE isn't new enough to be covered by it, but I wouldn't go that far. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been engaged here for a few months. I know of bite because you're not the first skeptic who's tried to silence me. EBDCM (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have continued edit warring without consensus.[24] Please gain consensus among editors by discussing the matters at hand on the talk page. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4