GigiButterfly

Talk Page

Cease fire

Both of you please refrain from *any* negative comments, starting right now.--I'clast 07:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Encouragement

alt text

I have noticed that some people have been rude to you recently, and I'm sorry to see that. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no excuse for incivility. Keep your chin up! ScienceApologist 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

3+ RR Warning

Since this is a new account, let me point out Wiki rules on edit reversion and "edit warring". Basically you are not to exceed 3 reverts per day, or that administrators can block. You are already over. Sometimes enforcement gets slack, but relying on that would be a self-defeating habit. I would advise using the Talk page to make your points to other editors when this occurs.--I'clast 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To be specific:

1. Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits , as you are doing in Quackwatch. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GigiButterfly: Re your 3RR/Vandal discussions on my talk page, recopied herein[1]:

"If I broke any rules then I challenge you to report me immediately. GigiButterfly 22:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"The rule does not apply to vandlism. GigiButterfly 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"You misapplying the term. Please (re-)read WP:VANDAL. You are well over 3RR.--I'clast 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"

Edit war

Constant reversions constitute an edit war. Pop-ups should really not be used for anything except reverting vandalism. It's a common mistake to think that someone undoing your edits is committing "vandalism", but as I'clast pointed out, the Wikipedia definition of vandalism specifically excludes content disputes. In other words, there's a content dispute going on between yourself and Levine2112. Neither of you is committing vandalism. However, the 3-revert rule is taken pretty seriously, and it's very likely that you will be blocked if you keep reverting. There's no fire or deadline; it's best in these situations to step back, take a deep breath, and engage on the article talk page. I hope you take these suggestions in the spirit they're offered; I'm just trying to help everyone get along. MastCell 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am peaceful. I do not start wars. GigiButterfly 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I too invite you to participate on the talk page discussion of this issue. I have asked a question of you and what you are attempting to add. I hope you can participate constructively and cooperatively there as well. Thanks. P.S. I see that you are a new editor and our policy around here is "don't bite the newbie". You are expected to make rookie mistakes. Levine2112 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember to sign your posts

See here to learn why and how to sign your talk page posts. Levine2112 01:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please go back to your previous posts and sign them. Just sign your name and add the right date and time from the edit history. After that, start signing by using four tildes. -- Fyslee 07:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"The criticism section is" NOT "an attack ad"

Your edit summary is not helpful. I am generally a supporter of the aims of Quackwatch, and therefore a potential ally, but our primary purpose here is to write an encyclopedia, not to defend or attack Quackwatch. If our defenses or attacks cause us to lose track of the main purpose here, then we need to step back and rethink things. The criticism section is a necessary part of the article. It may also be used by Quackwatch's opposers to attack Quackwatch, and if that becomes apparent to readers, then something's wrong, but the section is still necessary and legitimate. Content disputes should be worked out on the talk page instead of revert warring and inflammatory edit summaries. (Please don't look at my edit history as an example of perfection. It isn't! I too have made these mistakes, so I'm just sharing from my own experience.) I hope you will learn to contribute in a collaborative manner. I have a few thoughts on that matter here:

• Collaboration trumps all other policies.

• Criticism and undue weight. -- Fyslee 07:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please leave that section alone. It is now encyclopedic in form and contains a few criticisms that are pretty typical. While still inaccurate and straw man, they are at least not the usual ad hominem attacks. It could be, and has been, much worse, and your continued attacks on that section may result in it being restored to some earlier and much worse version, where there are more criticims that are all ad hominems. Please leave it alone. -- Fyslee 07:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NCAHF

No offense, but I think your recent comment in NCAHF is a bit uncivil [2]. I think it's better to focus on what you're proposing rather than how others are responding. When others appear to be ignoring or misinterpreting my comments I find it very helpful to be more specific with my points, to ask questions of others, and to avoid accusations.

If you go back in the edit history you'll see that I have the same concerns as you [3]. In general, many of the editor here refuse to make the article neutral. Instead they claim that all editors here are either pro-NCAHF and anti-NCAHF, and that there needs to be a balance between these two groups that have opposing and incompatible biases. Of course, it's all just an excuse to justify bias and assume bad faith. They also dismiss issues of notability, original research, reliable sources, Verifiability, and WP:NOT outright to "balance" the "opposing biases". They certainly aren't good at demonstrating civility either. The article's a mess. Let's not let behavioral issues get in the way of editing the article, as they have in the past. --Ronz 20:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tone

Hi - just a friendly suggestion - articles relating to Quackwatch are invariably controversial and tempers flare easily. It's best to try a calm approach and remain civil. Try to work toward consensus on the article talk pages, and try to avoid potentially inflammatory edit summaries. Policies like "no personal attacks" and WP:CIVIL are particularly important on such articles. Again, just a word of advice. Take care. MastCell 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

NLP

Thanks for your kind words. I'm afraid alot of editors just assume that if you try and work on the NLP article you must be pro. Unfortunateley I've turned my back on it for long periods of time this year due to the attachment wars. It gets disheartening. Fainites ^barley 07:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You are doing fine. Just keep focusing on high quality articles whenever you have time. WillB is also doing well. In the voting process people can still be open, candid and honest, and I think thats what's happening. All part of the pressure to improve. There's nothing wrong with a little healthy creative tension in the process.

You seem to have been really up against it on the NLP article. Its just another one of those subjects that is frought with financially interested parties who keep pushing the product on the Web. I think its just a matter of time and scrutiny though. I imagine a set of sensible editors can be contacted to help you out with the fact-guarding and clarifying. I wish I had more time. You are obviously applying your efforts constructively. Cheers GigiButterfly (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its just a question of financial interest though. People who practice such therapies have often trained in them, invested time and money in them and usually genuinely believe in them. If money were the sole criteria there are probably easier ways to get rich. Of course this varies between people who go for 'guru' status and big bucks, which is probably almost entirely cynical, through people who do just a quick weekend course on whatever is fashionable, down to people who may well spend a year or more training properly and conducting themselves in what they see as being in an appropriate and professional fashion with the genuine desire to heal. I don't think its fair to see all such people, many of whom may never have heard of the concept 'evidence based', as purely financially interested. Wikipedia probably attracts all types, although those with a substantial financial interest and ambitions will probably always have more time and motivation to push their stuff than their opponents. If you take attachment therapy as an example - controlling dozens of articles with the use of 6 socks, who frequently conducted lengthy talkpage conversations between themselves from different IP addresses, must have been practically a full time job!

Onward and upward! Fainites ^barley 10:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of account

This account has been indefinitely blocked. It is a reincarnation of an editor that uses multiple sockpuppets and that has been community-banned and blocked on multiple occasions in the past under different names. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)