User talk:Stmrlbs/Archive/001

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Blood groups, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Blood groups was changed by Stmrlbs (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2008-08-12T06:00:04+00:00 . Thank you.

ClueBot (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

my mistake

I had the redirect to Human Blood Group Systems instead of Human blood group systems

yikes! well, thanks cluebot for catching my error.  :)

Stmrlbs (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

oh my.. I replied to a wiki bot.

Next I will be IM'ing with Alice.

--stmrlbs|talk 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Barrett and Quackwatch

I may be wrong about that specific quote being included. I think WP:SELFPUB and WP:UNDUE at least suggest that a brief summary is preferable in this situation.

Kaufmann's article has been discussed at length on both article talk pages. There are lots of WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE concerns with this one, even some WP:NOT concerns if I recall correctly. --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, as per the full quote of Steve Barrett's answer to the question of Bias on his website:

from WP:SELFPUB:

material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article

This is a quote from Steve Barrett given on his website in answer to the question of bias which is what the paragraph is about. So, WP:SELFPUB does not apply, imo.

as far as undue weight... how does this apply? undue weight.. for what? Stephen Barrett's own opinion in an article about him? I don't think this applies either.

as far as the Kaufmann article.. I see that it is no longer accessible, and I agree not about Steve Barrett, but about his website. However, I see you immediately deleted the reference there on the Quackwatch website article. I won't reverse this, because I see the article is no longer accessible.

Please, from now on, when you say it has "been decided", can you please point me to where that decision was made? Both these articles have many archives..

Stmrlbs (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change. We just shouldn't try changing it without addressing the concerns brought up in the prior discussions.

Yes, undue weight in an article about him. We don't simply quote every opinion Barrett has had, nor even discuss every opinion. SELFPUB definitely applies, and can guide us to properly selecting what we actually quote or address.

However, given your need to quote Hamlet, I suggest you learn your way around Wikipedia by editing articles not under ARBCOM sanctions and by finding mentors that aren't regularly reminded about ARBCOM restrictions against them. See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

my my, Ronz.. you take a one 2 line quote from Hamlet that was not directed at you, but at Fyslee, and deleted 10 minutes later (which means you had to dig through history to find it)... and now I have a need to quote Hamlet? But.. hey, I like Hamlet, so.. I don't have a problem with being perceived to have a "need" to quote Hamlet. :) Perhaps I will find a few quotes just for you, Ronz. But next time you bring up something I did, try to tie it into the rest of your sentence. Hamlet has nothing to do learning my way around Wikipedia, so the juxtoposition of those two comments is rather illogical.

As to the rest of your comments, Ronz, you are not an administrator, and I don't appreciate your comments about staying away from certain articles what articles I should look at and who I should talk to. This is definitely against WP:NVC. I suggest that you and Fyslee reread WP:OWN, WP:COI, WP:NPOV (especially the part about Balance).

Stmrlbs (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:TALK, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I was making constructive suggestions to you, in the hope that you wouldn't get yourself into the trouble that others have. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Roan, please show me the Wikipedia page that says it is helpful for editors should tell newcomers to stay away from controversial topics. And please show me the Wikipedia policy page that says that it is helpful to tell newcomers who they should talk to.

If you really want to be helpful, then perhaps you could provide a link to the discussion where the matter that you say was decided was decided. This would be helpful. Going to a person's talk page and telling them to stay away from controversial topics and not to talk to certain people is not helpful.

Stmrlbs (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:AGF. I believe they are very good suggestions. Focus on articles that are not under ARBCOM sanctions. Find and learn from editors that aren't regularly reminded about ARBCOM restrictions against them. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ronz... this was not posted to be helpful:

However, given your need to quote Hamlet, I suggest you learn your way around Wikipedia by editing articles not under ARBCOM sanctions and by finding mentors that aren't regularly reminded about ARBCOM restrictions against them. See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "Hamlet" remark was a reference to a 2 line response to Fyslee, not you. If I had responded to your remark like Fyslee, I would have immediately deleted the your Hamlet remark and put WP:Talk as the reason. But I don't consider that as being what Wikipedia is about.

Your "suggestions" about "mentors" referred to a question that I left for Levine2112. Again.. a reference not to any conversation I had with you, but something that I think you posted to show me that you knew who I talked to. You went through my edit logs and brought these 2 conversations into this conversation.. this was not in the spirit of "helping".. but to show me that you knew who I had talked to and you were admonishing me on my actions.

Again, Ronz, you are not an administrator. You have no right to tell me where I can edit and who I should talk to.

I feel this conversation is no longer productive. Please follow WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. I will consider any further comments harrassment.

Stmrlbs (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel this way. Best of luck to you! --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stephen Barrett

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Talk:Stephen Barrett. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz.. please keep your comments on the Stephen Barrett talk page.

Stmrlbs (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm using this page appropriately, per WP:TALK and WP:USER. The template I used above is specifically made for use on user talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, my source was reliable - ABMS - American Board of Medical Specialties (for Board Certification). You can't get more credible than that. Did you even look to see what the source was? This is public information and something that even Barrett himself said he never tried to hide. So.. WP:BLP is not appropriate.

However, I do think this needs a 3rd unbiased party to look at everyone's edits. And I plan to find out about that.

Stmrlbs (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I looked. This tactic of trying to introduce the material has been tried and failed. Without a source demonstrating that this information is important, knowing that this information has been used to attack Barret, it's a BLP violation. Placing it in the lead section is especially problematic. Your personal arguments and insistence is not reason to include the information, but rather an additional reason not to include the information per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, I don't think you should be the one deciding this. I think this is something that should go into mediation. A 3rd neutral party needs to decide what is and is not allowed. And I consider this the end of this conversation.

Stmrlbs (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CON and WP:FORUMSHOP. Multiple editors have addressed your concerns. Rather than discussing them, you want to forum shop? --Ronz (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz.. you are something else. A consensus was never reached - contrary to what you initially implied. This is the problem. I don't think asking for a 3rd party neutral opinion is forum shopping. I will go by whatever a neutral mediator decides. How about you?

Stmrlbs (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A consensus was never reached because some editors refuse to follow WP:CON. Consensus from those editors that followed WP:CON was that the material violates multiple policies and guidelines, including WP:BLP, and that the editors that are unable to follow WP:CON would be ignored until they could learn to work cooperatively with others. I hope you'll will take the time to follow WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Sorry to butt in here but I feel ignored. ;) Did you read my response to you, Stmrlbs, at the talk page? I tried to give a couple links to archived discussions and my research for why the BC is not notable or necessary. Ok I'll butt out now. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.. didn't mean to ignore you. I did read it and reply after reading your entry here. Thank you for bringing it to my attention again.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just tried to give you some of the difs you were requesting. I hope it helps bring more light than heat to this battle going on. These kind of conversations is why I try to stay away from Barrett related topics, as do many other older editors, it's just too frustrating at times. Take care and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thread started

I have started a thread here. Let's get to the bottom of this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please respond. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

For anyone interested, Fyslee/BullRangifer's Thread here is an extension of [this conversation I had with Fyslee/BullRangifer] on the Stephen Barrett talk page.

This is my reply to Fyslee's talk page thread:

Fyslee, I am going to repeat what I said on the Barrett talk page. I have already answered your question:

In what sense has he (Barrett) represented "himself as an medical expert"? Please give an example."

with this, Barrett's own words from his own website:

Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist who resides near Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has achieved national renown as an author, editor, and consumer advocate. In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery. In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association. >From 1987 through 1989, he taught health education at The Pennsylvania State University. He is listed in Marquis Who's Who in America and received the 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. An expert in medical communications, Dr. Barrett operates 23 Web sites; edits Consumer Health Digest (a weekly electronic newsletter); is medical editor of Prometheus Books; and has been a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals. He has written more than 2,000 articles and delivered more than 300 talks at colleges, universities, medical schools, and professional meetings.

BullRangifer responded with:

I agree that Barrett likely wrote that about himself, but I disagree that "his notability is linked to his medical and scientific background." His medical career is totally unnotable, and his work as a researcher the same, with only one notable moment to my knowledge. No, he's notable because he's outspoken, totally non-politically correct, controversial, an activist, a famous scientific skeptic (in the top 20 of the 20th century), initiates the exposure of quackery and health fraud in a few instances, and mostly does in-depth journalistic work on quackery and health fraud cases already noted by the FDA, FTC, BBB, news media, etc.. His work is also published in magazines, journals, the television and other news media and various official reports, and then he also writes and edits books. To top it off, he has learned to use the internet to spread his message, and has harnessed a large group of individuals who will help him in that endeavor. (All done very simply and cheaply.) THAT'S what makes him notable. Hardly anyone knows him as a doctor or as a scientist. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

then, after more discussion, I asked:

Fyslee, if the training and experience needed to be an 'expert' on Quackery and Health Fraud is not science and medicine (and law, now that you bring fraud as a field that Barrett is an expert in), then what is the training and experience needed?

But instead, BullRangifer said that he didn't need to answer that question, then insinuated that I was a sockpuppet/meatpuppet, accused me of ulterior motives, reversed one of my comments and hatted off the discussion because he decided it shouldn't be continued on the page and was "distracting". To whom.. I don't know. Then he demanded that we get to the "bottom" of this.. something he created with deprecatory remarks and assumptions I was someone else.

I also see that in another discussion on the Reliable Sources Notice Board, where the discussion was on establishing QW as a RS, that when Enric Naval said:

WP:SPS allows for this sort of sources "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.": This guy (Barrett) meets this with flying colors for the field of medicine and of quackery in medicine.

that BullRangifer doesn't jump up and say, "No, Barrett's expertise is NOT in the field of medicine, just quackery in medicine. No correction. (and I also see BullRangifer accuses someone else of being a meatpuppet in that conversation). So, I think his interpretation of wikipedia policy might depend on what article you are applying it.

So, to summarize, BullRangifer argues for Quackwatch as a reliable source for medical quackery, but on Barrett's talk page, BullRangifer says that Barrett's medical and scientific background and qualifications are not relevant.

So, this, along with the bad faith accusations, are the reasons that I feel there is no point in continuing our discussion. This is why I started fresh with a new section, and by bringing in 3rd party opinions on the matter.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: Barrett's status as "medical expert"

BACKGROUND: A discussion found here. This is a CLOSED discussion between the two of us. Only after Stmrlbs has either documented his claim or withdrawn it, may others chime in at a later point in the game. We need to get this out of the way before progress can be made.

Your reply above is evasive and doesn't answer my question. It continues the circular argument. Please stick to the subject and don't introduce anything about other's wordings, nothing about sockpuppetry, nothing else, just the matter at hand. Please stay focused. If English isn't your mother tongue, then please make that clear and I'll be much more patient. The other editor whom you remind me of had German as his mother tongue, and we had very similar circular arguments.

This is about a dispute regarding what I consider to be a likely dubious claim made by Stmrlbs

"...[Barrett] made his name by representing himself as an medical expert."

Stmrlbs makes the claim as part of his argumentation for why an unsourced (or at least improperly sourced) piece of information about Barrett's lack of board certification should be included in the Barrett article. THAT is not the subject of discussion here. It is Stmrlbs's claim about Barrett claiming to be a "medical expert" that I question.

I'm bringing the discussion here since the dispute quickly became a distraction and circular discussion, and thus a violation ofWP:TALK. I put a hat on it, which is standard practice in such situations, something that Stmrlbs apparently doesn't realize and has reverted twice, rather than accepting what more experienced editors do in such situations. Anyone can do it, including uninvolved editors. There is no firm rule about it. If there was hope for the matter being resolved without disruption on that talk page, it would be OK to remove the hat, but that isn't the case.

In response to the following comment, I'm going to seek to get to the bottom of this matter:

"Please tell me what you think this situation is and where it says an editor (not an admin) can just hat a whole conversation with other people's comments without notifying the other people involved. I do not want my comments hidden, and you never talked to me before you did this." --Stmrlbs (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Stmrlbs, our comments are still there. A "hat" doesnt't remove them. It just helps to ensure that our personal dispute doesn't continue to disrupt the discussion. It veered off-topic, and would have been more appropriate as a separate thread, but since it became more personal and very circular, it doesn't belong on that page. Other editors might have removed the whole thing as a TALK violation, but I didn't do that. I'm not sure why we're having the impasse in our communication, but maybe your first language isn't English? Well, here goes... you ask me to tell you what I "think this situation is". Fair enough.

The situation is that you made a possibly dubious claim as part of your argumentation. That claim may be fallacious. If you were to build your argumentation on a fallacious idea, then the conclusions that followed it would be fallacious as well, and we'd end up not really solving the matter about whether or not to include the board certification matter. That's why my response to your claim meant: "Wait a minute. Something's wrong here, and let's clear this up before continuing." I said you hadn't documented your claim, while you claimed you had, all several times in what became a circular discussion. I'm a skeptic and you have made a questionable claim. You must document it or drop it and any line of reasoning based on it.

I'm still waiting for documentation for THAT claim. Not any claims about "expert", but about "medical expert". That's what you claimed. Please document it. I have already stated my opinion about his expert status, so let's not go in circles here. Don't force me to repeat myself.

Please provide an example of him "representing himself as an medical expert." I'm not saying he hasn't done it, but that I'd like to see it, and in what manner it has been done. That is an important matter to clear up. Focus on those two words -- "medical expert". -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that seeking opinions and support elsewhere does not relieve you from the obligation to document your likely false claim, and to do it here. I definitely do not consider your responses so far as anything even remotely close to documenting your claim, and if you have an ounce of honesty or collegiality in your body, you should be seeking to understand why. If you aren't communicating with ME, then you will not find out where the communication breakdown is happening. So far I've considered it might have to do with some sort of language issue, but I'm beginning to wonder if you're just avoiding the issue and using diversionary techniques. That certainly wouldn't solve the matter either. I'm still trying to AGF and hope this can be resolved here. If not, I'm prepared to take this matter higher up. Please focus your efforts HERE, not elsewhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

--

BullRangifer/Fyslee, a person does not have to say, literally "I am a medical expert" to declare an expertise in an area of medicine. You seem to think that only a literal declaration of "I am a medical expert" will support declaration of expertise in an area. What I am saying is that the excerpt from Quackwatch with Barrett wrote about his accomplishments are testifying to his reputation and ability to judge other modularities in medicine and health fraud. I would say the majority of people in the world feel that to fairly judge anything, you need education and experience in that area. To fairly judge medicine, you need education and experience in medicine. To fairly judge the science of something, you need to understand the science of that area - that also implies education and experience. In order to judge the law in a situation, you need education and experience in law. Barrett has made references to health, science, medicine in his bio, like "a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals". He doesn't make references to great knowledge in gardening or architecture, does he? Because he knows that what he is notable for does not require knowledge of gardening or architecture.

So, imo, I have answered your initial question. Not the one where you said that the only correct answer is where Barrett says literally "I am a medical expert". You are the only one that requires that. Plus, it is taking one phrase, and magnifying it so you can divert from the main point of the discussion, and that point is what is needed in the education and experience of someone to be notable as an expert in quackery and health fraud if not medicine and law?

as far as going to another board, you abused WP:Talk several times in this discussion:

1. here you say I have an ulterior motive, imply I'm a puppet]
2. here you declare that "the discussion has long since had little relevance to improving the article" and that I am "misusing this talk page to criticize Barrett", and that I am "welcome to come to my talk page with your evidence"
3. here you refuse to answer my question.. which was a legitimate question, then you make more deprecatory remarks along with an odd reference to Scientology ??,
4. here you reverted my response, and hatted the discussion without any consensus from me.. just a demand "email me".

Then.. here when I specifically ask where it says that it is wikipedia policy that an editor hats an entire discussion without consulting the other editor, and say that I do NOT want my comments hidden, you reply that it is standard procedure. and you never change that until I post on the editor's board asking what the policy is, then.. all of a sudden, you post "There is no firm policy on this (hatting), but that's what happens, and I see that another editor also feels the same way. ". This is a very telling omission on your part.

So, Fyslee/BullRangifer, I see no need to continue this discussion as you think you have been demanding, made bad faith accusations, forcibly hatted our discussion when you knew I didn't agree to it, and omitted saying anything about consensus until you realized I was asking about the policy on the Editor help board. So.. I don't feel the need to continue this conversation as I don't think you are being straight with me, based on these past actions.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we're still not getting anywhere. To at least answer one of your points, I'll use the illustration from the FBI. To be an expert in counterfeit dollar bills, one only has to be an expert in the real thing. Anything that deviates from a real dollar bill is a conterfeit. So it is with fringe scientific and alternative medical subjects. One has to have a good basic understanding of science and medicine to be able to recognize when someone is making false claims. One doesn't have to be a chiropractor, naturopath, or practitioner of TCM to recognize certain claims that deviate from what is proven to be true by using the scientific method. When Barrett needs even more knowledge on a subject, he has plenty of allies in those fringe professions, as well as other scientists and medical professionals to aid him.

What I understood to be one of your main contentions was that:

• "[He] has made his name by representing himself as an medical expert."

That contains two elements that are misleading:

1. That he "made his name" (was notable) as a medical expert.

No, he made his name as a quackbuster. He didn't make it as a medical expert in psychiatry (even though he was), neurology, cardiology, or any other medical specialty. Even his career as a psychiatrist was unnotable. No, his notability has always been derived from his quackbusting activities. If you can show that he had any renown ("made his name") for anything unrelated to that, I'd be surprised and would love to know about it. Please enlighten me.

2. That he represented himself as a "medical expert".

No, the only thing close to that would be as an expert witness in his capacity as a working psychiatrist, something which the courts allowed. That would be legitimate, since he was a trained psychiatrist. One could possibly make a case for his expertise in the area of nutrition, since he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association, but even then one would need to keep in mind that honorary memberships are given for many different reasons. His expertise in nutrition and other matters is often derived from his use of true experts in all those fields.

One thing his career and many notable V & RS confirm is that he at least knows enough about science, medicine, and consumer protection law, to recognize the counterfeits when he encounters them. In fact, he often simply publishes about cases where the FDA, FTC, FBI, BBB, etc. have already busted people, and he does investigative journalism on the subject. None of all those activities need an education in the specific fields. It is not necessary to be a professional from a quack field of labor to label it as quackery or pseudoscience. All one needs to do is to demonstrate that one understands basic science and medicine better than the quacks who are making false claims. When they don't even rise to the level of a basic understanding of those things, he can legitimately point it out, and that's what he does.

Since it seems I have no choice but to do so, I'm going to drop this particular discussion now, since I don't have an unlimited amount of time for circular discussions, and your responses just get more and more involved, with strawmen and misquotations about me that would require even more time. I want a simple focus on one matter, but you seem incapable of, or lack the desire, to do so. This seems hopeless. I would like to have had a good resolution and have learned something about Barrett from you which I didn't know already, but unfortunately I have been disappointed. I hope you are more careful in your statements in the future. So far you are treading the same path as several known and infamous disrupters here, and I fear for your future here. Your presence here may be more of a liability than it's worth.

BTW, my username isn't Fyslee or "BullRangifer/Fyslee". It is now BullRangifer. We are all getting used to it, and it's about time you used a bit of courtesy and also got used to using it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

When I started this discussion, you were Fyslee. Now you are BullRangifer. For the sake of clarity to anyone following the discussion, I use both names.

This discussion should have been over a long time ago. But, I am glad that at least we finally have consensus about that.

--Stmrlbs (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

agreement on some points

I see that BullRangifer has stated that the dispute is unresolved. I said way back at the discussion on the Barrett page that we would just have to agree to disagree on some points. However, I would like to clarify the points we agree and disagree on:

• we both agree that Stephen Barrett is not a medical expert - I pretty much agree with what Fyslee said here. I also agree with Fyslee that what Barrett is notable for is not psychiatry or research, but going after quackery and health fraud.

• we don't agree on how Stephen Barrett represents himself. Fyslee is saying that Barrett doesn't claim medical expertise because he has not made the statement "I am a medical expert". I think he does represent himself as having medical expertise by what he writes about himself on his website. ex: "is medical editor of Prometheus Books; and has been a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals". He recognizes that people want to know about his credentials because of what he does. This is why it is linked to his notability.

• one unanswered question on Fyslee's part is what background/education/experience is needed for Barrett's expertise in quackery and health fraud if not medicine, science, and law? I think that Barrett's background in medicine, science, and law is very important to this vocation. Evidently, Fyslee doesn't think it is that important to being an expert in quackery and health fraud for reasons he stated above. Frankly, I think most people would disagree that educational and professional background isn't important for a person that consults with the government and FDA about what and what not is quackery.

So.. I think that about sums it up.

--strmlbs 10:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You deserve a reply to your last paragraph, since it contains a form of fallacious reasoning you have used a number of times during this dispute. In this case, you state:

• "Evidently, Fyslee doesn't think it is that important to being an expert in quackery and health fraud for reasons he stated above."

But that contains two faults:

1. I definitely DO "think it is ... important to being an expert in quackery and health fraud..."

2. Where did I state ("for reasons he stated above") that I don't "think it is that important to being an expert in quackery and health fraud" ?

I sure would like to know what I said that could be construed in that manner. Maybe it was a typo, because I don't recognize it. Several times during this dispute you have done the same thing (putting words in my mouth). To illustrate, if we had been discussing color preferences between the two colors blue and yellow, and I had said I liked blue in a certain situation, and you then wrote that I didn't like yellow in that situation. That type of reasoning is fallacious. You have assumed I didn't like yellow, just because I did say I liked blue. The one doesn't follow the other. You have often done that exact type of thing. In the case above, I'd at least like to clear it up. What did I say that made you state that I don't think something that I definitely do think?

What's ironic about this is that we both "think that Barrett's background in medicine, science, and law is very important to this vocation." On that we are definitely agreed. Why you think that I don't think so is beyond me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

perhaps I misinterpreted your words. So, you are saying that you do think Barrett's background in medicine, science, and law is very important to Barrett's expertise in quackery and health fraud?

--strmlbs 04:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely. It is very basic to it. I just don't think that he "made his name by representing himself as an medical expert." He made it through his quackbusting activities. That has been my point all along. -- BRangifer (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Barret's board certification

Hi, just a friendly suggestion: move on from the issue of Stephen Barrett's board certification. Most people who care already know, and those who don't care won't care when/if they do find out. You can go on forever, but there are more interesting things to do. Not everything needs to be on Wikipedia; the internet makes most information extremely easy to find. II | (t - c) 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Thanks for the suggestion on my talk page. However, I don't quite understand it. I don't see any letters peeking out behind my name now, but I do see them if I try your suggestion. I suspect this has something to do with the differences between browsers and browser settings. I have neither the knowledge or time to figure this out, but if you understand these things, I'd love to hear an explanation, and know of a solution that can handle different browsers and different browser settings. BTW, I'm using Firefox, but I have my computer set up to magnify fonts. I might be doing some font substitutions. I don't remember as it has been a few years since I set up the computer. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at my change with both IE and Firefox before writing you, but I bet you are right.. I bet it has something to do with the font magnification. I have IE 7.0.5730.11 and Firefox 3.0.10. Can you tell me how you have the font magnified and to what you have it set? That will help me see what is going on. thanks!

--stmrlbs|talk 21:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Because of my prespyopia and hyperopia in combination with high res monitors, I have my default font set to Ariel (unicode) 20pts. Also the system fonts are set to 120 dpi. I'm using Windows with the most recent Firefox browser (auto updated). --☑ SamuelWantman 22:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ok!!! I see it. and, I think I know what the problem is. I will get back to you when I come up with a better solution!

--stmrlbs|talk 23:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks the same to me, but I'm glad it will look good for everyone else. There should be a template for this. So I made one... {{Usertitle}}. Please try substituting it on your talk page and let me know if it works for you, and of course, make any changes you want. I wonder if there is a way to code the template to check if the person editing is the same as the name of the page, so it could never be used for vandalism. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your user page doesn't show the partial text now (and I changed the fonts to see if it still looked ok, and it did). Looks good!

Did you get the email I sent you? I took screen snapshots of what it looked like to me. I sent them to your wikipedia email address.

I took a look at the template, and I think I remember reading something about "magic words" or something to that effect, where they had some predefined variables, one of them for USERNAME. I will try to find it tomorrow. That way, the UserName would automatically be put in.. is that what you wanted?

and I will try your template tomorrow. Looks cool! (and I'm a she :))

--stmrlbs|talk 09:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I thought you were "Saint Mister Pounds". -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

oh my! I don't think I even want to be "Saint Mistress Pounds"!:) Not a good name, in this day and age. But, I realize after being on Wikipedia for a while, I should have chosen a handle that people can pronounce. oh, well.. too late now.

Sam, I sent you a wiki email about the template.

--stmrlbs|talk 20:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are e-mailing me. There is no problem having an conversation here on your talk page. That is what they are for.

It looks to me that you are not familiar with substituting templates. If you type subst: before the name of the template, for example if you type {{subst:usertitle}} then the contents of the template are copied over to the page when you save and the template is no longer transcluded. The problem I had with the template is that ~~~ is an automatic substitution of the user's signature, and I actually want the template to substitute the three tildes. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The first time I emailed you is because I took the screenshots of how your page looked to me - it was easier to see the problem. However, I could not figure out how/where to upload them here (for temporary use), and so I emailed you with links to another site where I uploaded the snapshots. The other email was because I wasn't sure whether to continue the conversation by email or not. But, actually, I prefer talking on the user pages.

You are right - I didn't know about SUBST. They usually have some function like this in any macro language, but I just didn't know what it was called in Wiki. Thanks.. learned something new today!. I understand now what you are saying about the tildes. Previously, I just called the template like I've seen other templates called. But, I tried it again with the subst, and it looks nice.

I like the signature up there. Thanks!

--stmrlbs|talk 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Minor formatting change

I just reformatted some of your text at Talk:Stephen Barrett. I am pretty sure that no meaning was changed, but would like to notify you regardless. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --stmrlbs|talk 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Page deleted

I have deleted User:Stmrlbs/SB BC History. If you wish a copy for your personal use, let me know here and I will email it to you. As it was, however, it appeared to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, and its existence promoted ill will. Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(my reply: User_talk:KillerChihuahua#request_to_email_deleted_page)

legal status of drugs containing colloidal silver in Germany

Hello Stmrlbs ! See my answer: [1] Redecke (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael, for the explanation. --stmrlbs|talk 18:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Usertitle again

Have you noticed that when there is a banner message on the top of your talk page, the {{usertitle}} shows up in the wrong spot? Have any ideas how to fix this? --☑ SamuelWantman 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. :(

I think the notice changes the parent box. the positioning elements are in relation to the parent box of the element for which the positioning statements are defined. Unfortunately, I clicked hide (to hide the Site Notice) so I could see what parent box the original page used (without the SiteNotice), and now I can't get the SiteNotice displayed again. So.. I've been searching help to find out how to get the notice displayed again, so I can see what is happening to the parent boxes - and with zip results. So, I'm looking at the javascript now..

Anyway, I'm sure there will be another notice soon (there seem to be quite a few). I'll figure it out. Thanks for pointing it out.

--stmrlbs|talk 05:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token f7abb3f642f6d795869b1b5b79a5ac96

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

set new header with usertitle

Official tryout of Sam's {{subst:usertitle}}

Sorry for my goof up

If you notice any weird back and forth edits by me, I made a goof up. I simply mistook one IP for another and then forgot the rest were in different locations. I have restored them back to your last edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how you could revert my edit on 6 different IPs with my reason stated very clearly on the edit summary of each IP, by mistake. What IP did you think it was? Do you condone QuackGuru's actions?

--stmrlbs|talk 07:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I forgot the IPs were in different locations, even though they superficially seemed nearly identical, and thus weren't likely to fit his description. (I have seen this same phenomenon before all controlled by one user in NZ, but that doesn't apply here, and I have no evidence.) I then hit the wrong repeat button. Since they weren't the same, I should have judged each one separately and edited accordingly. It went too fast. When I discovered what I had done, I immediately fixed it. Sorry about that. I'll be more careful next time. I'm leaving this one for you and QG to settle. If he has evidence, then he'll have to produce it. As you likely know, I don't always agree with him. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you have no problem supporting QuackGuru's Bad Faith accusations on the chiropractic page [2] when it proves advantageous to you. You said this 3 days after I had made my last post on this page. Since these accusations were about these same IPs, I will assume that you do agree with Quackguru's accusations, vandalism (he vandalized Levine's userpage twice) and harassment.

--stmrlbs|talk 08:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be best for you to not assume anything, especially when it comes to my relationship and attitudes toward QG. I often disagree with him. He's much like SA, whose methods I abhor. Anyway I came here to apologize for my goof up and I have done that. Take it or leave it, that's up to you, but I'm not interested in arguing over the matter. I made a mistake, that's all. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take your own advice about making assumptions, before posting statements on talk pages about Levine2112 and I working together with armies of sockpuppets to disrupt a topic, just because we don't agree with your POV on certain parts of the article. Discuss the content, not the editors. --stmrlbs|talk 17:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem is fixed for now with the partial protection on the page to prevent IP edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, I'm sure those IPs revert much more than people that are registered. On second thought, I guess that depends on what people you are talking about.

But I think it may be good that you got the page protected. Maybe this will be the incentive for all those IPs to register and become permanent editors on those chiropractic articles. If this happened, it would surely benefit the whole chiropractic area in the long run. The more editors contributing to the article, the better. It is the true wikipedian way. --stmrlbs|talk 06:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aspartame controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Verbal chat 09:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Verbal, MaxPont and I were just trying to follow what was decided on the talk page, despite your reverts. I'm referring to this discussion here: Talk:Aspartame_controversy#Air_Force_alert_needs_verifiable_.26_reliable_source, particularly this part: [3][4] [5]

KeepCalmandCarryOn was the one WP:Gamed by talking about moving the paragraph, then deleting it instead [6] (which I notice you did nothing about even though you were watching this page). Then when MaxPont put it back in with a more appropriate title [7], as per talk page discussion, you reverted that[8]. So, I looked, saw what KeepCalmandCarryon had done, and put the paragraph back [9]. Then you reverted me.[10].

It almost looks like WP:TagTeam with you and KeepCalmAndCarryOn to keep this out of the article, even after it was ok'd on the talk page.

However, I see that after you reverted me and slapped this editwarring template on my user page in an effort to CYA, you decided to add in the paragraph (the same paragraph that MaxPont tried to add and you reverted) with your own title [11].

Who's edit warring?

--stmrlbs|talk 10:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and strike your accusations. Ad hom is always a poor substitute for reasoned argument. Verbal chat 13:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

I think I addressed the substance of the edit reverts and produced enough evidence to support my statements.

Verbal, WP:Civil would have been moving taking a minute to look at MaxPont's intent instead of doing one of your instant reverts on an article that you watch. Collaboration would have been moving the article to a better place instead of just reverting MaxPont's edit. You could have done the same with my edits, too. But, instead you repeatedly reverted us, then put the edit in your way. This is edit warring, not collaboration. It is also POV reverting - reverting only those editors whose point of view you don't agree with, without looking at the content of their edits or the intent. It is WP:Badfaith - assuming that what we are trying to do must be wrong, but when you do the same thing with a minor difference, it is ok. This article is not "owned" by you and the resident editors who share your POV. It is supposed to be a group effort. Next time, take a minute to look at what you are reverting, as well as who you are reverting, as per WP:GoodFaith.

--stmrlbs|talk 04:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

multiple prefixes

I just committed it now, so it didn't make it into the software update this morning. The syntax is going to be like this: prefix:Something|Something else. I.e. you will be able to put multiple prefixes delimited by pipe, but it will need to wait for the next software update that i guess won't be too now. --rainman (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

They are usually weekly, but we fell behind the schedule for the last couple of months and had one big one yesterday. Yes, all software is open-source and is in wikimedia svn, the search extension is here: Extension:lucene-search. --rainman (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been synced, the query would be something like this: [12]. Please document this behavior somewhere (Wikipedia:Searching maybe?). --rainman (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! :) --rainman (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

talk page cleanup

I cleaned up my talk page... just deleted the stuff instead of archiving... and like u said, it worked and i got the help i needed! thanks again! 70.71.22.45 (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

no problem. Just let me know if you want to set up automatic archiving. I'll be glad to help. --stmrlbs|talk 07:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

search all delete discussions (work in progress)

this is still in the "test phase" (as far as setting up a template to use the new prefix capability added by rainman) try it out:

Search all the Deletion archives

I have it set up right now just to search the deletion archives. Try searching for "Courtland County" or a user's name (that brings up a lot of different sections). comments? --stmrlbs|talk 07:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

a question of policy concerning WP:SOAP and google indexing of user pages

I have moved the post that I requested comment on to here: question of policy concerning WP:SOAP and google indexing of user pages (talk page of What Wikipedia is not). If you have comments, please add them there. Thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel like getting them on a technicality, they are not allowed to copy their blog to their user space unless they go through the process of licensing their blog under CC-BY-SA. —harej (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about BullRangifer - his space just happened to be the one that I looked at because of the ANI, and his User pages happen to make a good example of what can happen with google indexing User pages.

My question is why does Wikipedia allow indexing of User Pages? That policy is an open door to anyone that wants to use Wikipedia in this way. Plus it can lead to people thinking that the User articles they find on a subject are the Main Wikipedia articles.

--stmrlbs|talk 19:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have comments, please add them here: question of policy concerning WP:SOAP and google indexing of user pages. Thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 02:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

moved RFC

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Hi, thanks for the link. I have seen this discussion previously in other places and I'm not sure I can add much more to it. I hear the arguments on both sides and to me it looks like it will be very hard to reach a consensus there. From a technical perspective using noindex for google will decrease the serchability of user pages because internal search uses only the data from the project, while google uses all of internet (e.g. blogs, homepages, etc..) as a repository of meta information and is more capable of connecting the user page with a person whose name is not necessarily even mentioned anywhere on wikipedia. e.g. a search for my real name on google will also find my sr.wiki homepage, although on sr.wiki my name is mentioned only in an obscure image caption (without linking to my userpage) and nowhere else. --rainman (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Also, to be fair, this part: "*Some collateral damage - some useful userspace content may not be found via external search engines anymore (unless it's mirrored)" - the mirror will not reflect the current status/changes in wikipedia. Plus, mirrors don't necessarily copy all of wikipedia. So, it is iffy about mirrors supplementing what is lost to being able to search wikipedia by SE"

Not entirely sure what your point(s) is/are. Some mirrors will reflect changes after a shortish while; others hardly get updated. Most take the smaller dump which doesn't include userspace; some take userspace too (or random bits of it). Yes, it's clearly iffy - that's what I meant by "unless mirrored". Feel free to clarify the Collaborative Statement if you think necessary. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

10

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I never had the "pleasure" of punching cards, but when I got to college some of the "old timers" could still occasionally be seen with their stacks of punch cards. That's a nice collection of user boxes on your user page. I particularly like the one about there being 10 kinds of people. I see you have edited the Blood type diet article. That article says: "phylogenetic networks of human and non-human ABO alleles show that the A gene was the first to evolve". The Phylogenetic network article does not mention alleles and says "visualize evolutionary relationships between species or organisms", but a quick look in the literature finds "Phylogenetic networks provide an explicit representation of the evolutionary relationships among sequences, genes, chromosomes, genomes, or species.". This is mostly "greek" to me, but it seems like the Phylogenetic network article might need an update/expansion. --JWSchmidt (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL - my userboxes! Well, I wish I could take credit, but there are a lot of funny people on wikipedia who like to create userboxes! The eventualist equation is mine, though. As far as the phylogenetic network article, I see what you mean. I've mostly looked at some articles on using ABO alleles to try to determine ABO blood type ancestry - specifically, what ABO blood type was the first, and what other blood types evolved from that. This is the basis for a lot of the popular diet theories (not just the blood type diet - although this is the most well known). However, phylgenetic network is about genetics (apparent from the name) and evolution, and the description doesn't quite capture that, does it? I would be ok making the description more up-to-date, but I think I will leave the specifics to experts in this area. The article you found is quite interesting.. not only for the development of a better way of recording a Phylogenetic network, but also for the reasons for the development of the Newark Format. Thanks for the link. --stmrlbs|talk 23:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism

Please don't accuse an IP of vandalism when you are engaging in edit war in a content dispute. QuackGuru (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked the IP to discuss changes on the talk pages, instead of making reverts with uncivil comments. No response. Just keeps making reverts with comments that indicate a prior knowledge of the editors. If this IP keeps up, I'm taking it up where something will be done. Might have it checked to make sure it isn't a sockpuppet. --stmrlbs|talk 08:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You claimed you have asked the IP to discuss the changes on the talk pages but it was Levine2112's account who asked the IP to discuss the changes. Are you Levine2112? QuackGuru (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then that makes 2 people that have asked this IP to discuss changes in talk. See my edit summary [13].  ::: Are you bored tonight, QuackGuru? Is that why you are suddenly so concerned with this new IP? Seems kind of uncharacteristic for you. Usually you are assuming every new IP that appears must be a sockpuppet. Hmmm... what is different about this IP? Oh! He/she is reverting the same things you were! What a coincidence! Well, now I understand the feelings of simpatico. --stmrlbs|talk 09:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Trying to answer your question

I'm upset that you don't appear to actually want to discuss the matter that you brought up. Should I be surprised as well? --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you were actually trying to discuss anything, Ronz. You know that my reference to harassment [14] was in the context of "how do I spell WP:Harass" in exasperation of QuackGuru's past and present actions which I won't go into here again since I detail them in the link. The fact that you take one part of this, totally changing the context in which it was originally posted, and using that to post the a definition of WP:Harassment with admonitions [15] is a form of harassment in itself. It certainly cannot be viewed as a neutral invitation to a discussion. It certainly is not exactly an invitation to discuss anything, but more like a lecture. If you want to really discuss something, you do not approach like this, unless you really want WP:Battle. Do you understand that, Ronz?

What exactly did you want to discuss? Since you know I wasn't really asking for a copy/paste of the definition of WP:Harass since I linked to it in the original context? --stmrlbs|talk 19:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"is a form of harassment in itself." If you feels so strongly about this, take it to WP:WQA. As my original comment made clear - harassment is not a alternative to dispute resolution. Claiming that good faith comments are harassment is not an alternative either. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I rest my case. --stmrlbs|talk 19:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

---

actually, in reading this again [16], were you referring to this? [17] And, this is something I shouldn't have gotten into on ThuranX's Talk page - my bad. It is something to be discussed on my talk page, not ThuranX talk page. But I was asking you for specific examples of where I harassed QuackGuru, not a definition of WP:Harass. --stmrlbs|talk 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My response was to review WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. I did this because I feel the answer is obvious from even the most simple review of these two policies. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems I was right in my initial assumption that Ronz really had no intention of really discussing anything specific. Because he really doesn't have anything specific. --stmrlbs|talk 23:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I just explained myself. Sorry that the explanation bothered you so. I'm happy to discuss specifics, if and when necessary. In this case, I thought the initial response should be some basics that apply to the entire situation. Given these basics, why is it necessary to discuss specifics? You've spent a great deal focusing on Quackguru, his behavior, and your assumptions of his motives, all in violation of WP:NPA. Your persistence to do so is harassment. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it didn't "bother" me. You don't bother me, Ronz. I was just pointing out that copy/pasting text from WP:Harass instead of really answering my question is a way of saying that you understand WP:Harass, and I don't. It is implying that I have not read WP:Harass and you have. It is an implied put-down. I was just recognizing your response for what it was.

I do see that in your 2nd reply, you do reference the actions that you feel were harassment of QuackGuru. Thank you for answering my question.

So, I see in general that you consider my remarking on QuackGuru's actions is harassment. This, along with the fact that you have said nothing about harassment to QuackGuru, seems to imply that you feel that QuackGuru's actions were ok, and above board. You seem to feel that our (ThuranX, and me in particular) remarks about Quackguru's edits and actions were just harassment of a good editor. In particular,

• Do you think QuackGuru's edits are NPOV? In particular, do you think this version of the Nguyen review that Quackguru repeatedly tried to get in before the page was protected was NPOV? [30] (version that ThuranX thought was most balanced, and QuackGuru's version of the review).
• What do you think of QuackGuru putting the sockpuppet templates on those old IPs so that they all said the IPs were suspected sockpuppets of me right after the page was protected? Did you think that was ok - above board?

--stmrlbs|talk 21:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"It is an implied put-down. I was just recognizing your response for what it was." Not at all. I suggest you take this to WQA.

"This, along with the fact that you have said nothing about harassment to QuackGuru, seems to imply that you feel that QuackGuru's actions were ok, and above board." Not at all. QuackGuru was the very first individual I contacted about the ongoing problems at Quackwatch.

"You seem to feel that our (ThuranX, and me in particular) remarks about Quackguru's edits and actions were just harassment of a good editor. " Not at all. They were not "just harassment". You both have some good points, they just get lost in all focus on QuackGuru.

"Do you think QuackGuru's edits are NPOV?" A few of the NPOV concerns he's brought up are worth discussing. No real progress has been made in those discussions.

"What do you think of QuackGuru putting the sockpuppet..." As I've said when he started this last time, he has not presented any evidence that there is any violation of WP:SOCK occurring. Sadly for all involved, it seems to be a response to the persistent harassment.

From my perspective, you've all got into such a habit of battling each other, that you accomplish little or nothing else. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

filed an incident report on QuackGuru

Ended up filing an incident on QuackGuru: [31] for ongoing edit warring and harassment. Resolved: [32] [33] --stmrlbs|talk 04:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Long overdue. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, do you still need this page in your userspace? It looks like it's already been submitted at WP:SPI and closed, so unless you need a copy of it for some reason, probably best to delete it. I can do this if you like, or you can tag it with {{db-userreq}}. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a solution to the problem with section headers and SPIs. see here:

# Thread#1

# Thread#2

I don't have any intention of keeping it there once either a new form is found to work (throughout the SPI process), or it is decided it is unresolvable without software changes. And, I put a noindex and notice that it was in my userspace. When it is done, I will not only delet that one, but these related pages related to the fix [34] [35] [36][37][38][39][40][41][42]- the originals to illustrate the problem, and the _2 versions being the proposed solution --stmrlbs|talk 19:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

and on another related note, I thought a block from Wikipedia was a block from everything. However, I notice that Quackguru posted on his talk page here [43] [44] . So, QuackGuru can still post on his talk page? Can QuackGuru post anywhere else? And, the block is just posting? but he can read everything going on? --stmrlbs|talk 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I saw Shell's note on User Talk:QuackGuru as well, and I understand now that you're trying to keep a readily accessible link to this page until the technical issues are resolved, which is fine with me.

Regarding your question, blocked users can edit their own talk page, but nowhere else, as a technical matter. That's largely so that they have an avenue to request review of the block, post an {{unblock}} request, and so forth. That privilege can be, and has been, revoked if the blocked user abuses their talk-page access to continue the same sorts of behavior for which they were blocked in the first place. Blocked users can freely read any page on Wikipedia, just as anyone with Internet access can read them - it would be pretty extreme to prohibit them from even looking at the site. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on many sites, this is what being banned from the site means - no access - read and write. But the ban is usually forum related and to prevent ongoing canvassing, etc. However, Wikipedia being what it is, I can see where a read access ban would be extreme. --stmrlbs|talk 21:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI section headers now working

The changes to the SPI forms are now in WP:SPI and being used. It should make it much easier for users to edit SPIs. I have put in the speedy deletes to clean up my sandbox test cases. stmrlbs|talk 01:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

RFCU templates in SPI subpages

If you don't mind, I'm going to comment-out the {{RFCU}} templates in your SPI subpages as they become automatically categorized under Category:SPI requests for pre-CheckUser review, and we need to keep track of how many cases there are in total. Thank you, MuZemike 15:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Once Luna Santin moves over my changes, I can check for any problems, and if there are none, I plan to delete the SPIs as I will no longer need them. --stmrlbs|talk 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:

Thanks for your input! I sincerely appreciate it, especially with cases that are tough to look at clearly. Cheers, Master of Puppets 05:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: question about Logs Search

This is because the logs search is separate from fulltext search and is using the default mysql engine. The problem you describe could in principle be solved by adding a stripped version of the article title and then search that via mysql. I don't think we have such a request in bugzilla at the moment. --rainman (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Christmas candle

"What are the cats waiting for?" - well Christmas of course ;) - true version is: there were a blackbird sitting in the bush just above them - they both stare at it, probably planning for dinner hah. Thank you for your kind words :) Best regards Malene (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

The Revision History of Wikipedia:Mentorship records your participation the article's development; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Surprise

		The Template Barnstar
		For the {{Search prefixes}} template. Pcap ping 23:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your template is a definite improvement over the amount of work required to get something like that done in the past, e.g. as it was done at WT:MED. I've used your template at WT:ROMANIA to consolidate search for old and new notice board archives. I've also added an option not to display the list of pages searched at all, because I found that feature a bit annoying: it displays red links for Foo/ prefixes, which may confuse users into thinking it's not configured correctly. Pcap ping 23:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

a meeting of minds is in order

7/0 =This user believes that math is broke.ERROR

${\frac {a}{0}}$OH SHI–

I think the creators of the above userboxes need to hear 2/0's unique perspective on this abstraction - perhaps they will be inspired to create some new userboxes on the infinite romantic implications of this mathematical notation. [45][46] stmrlbs|talk 01:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Suzanne Somers

Thanks for fixing this. I had copied the refs from the other article and forgotten to pare them down to what was only relevant on her page. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

you're welcome.  :) stmrlbs|talk 08:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Infobox road

Please get consensus before you make a change like that; if you break something over 10,000 pages could be affected. Also, [47] doesn't protect the page - only administrators have the ability to protect pages, and that is through a tab at the top of the screen; it has nothing to do with templates. --Rschen7754 04:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The pp template is used to display protection status, is it not? When I copied this template to my user space to modify and test it, another editor commented out the pp template. When I finished testing, and moved my template into the public space, I realized the pp-template was still commented out and put it back in.

I was simply browsing around various road articles and found that your changes in fact broke many articles' infoboxes, such as Interstate 76 (east). Yes, as rschen said above, please gain consensus before making such a change. --O (谈 • висчвын) 04:27, 28 December 2009 (GMT)

Actually, this problem with size of shields was discussed, here: I think that there is an assumption that all that is needed to adjust the size of problem shields is to make a mod to the JCT template, and when I posted that this was not true for the Browse part of the Infobox Road template[48], no one commented. I asked a question about the template here [49] and never got an answer. I realize that it is a problem to make any modification to a template that is so heavily used, but when solution of using an alternative template that is more geared to a subset of roads is suggested, a lot of people don't like that. So, what is the solution? I don't know.. but I think that one thing that would help would be to come up with a subset of roads that use the template in different ways, so that when a change is made, that a demonstration of a working transclusion with this subset of roads is required before putting the mod on the public wikipedia. However, I could not find anything like this. In lieu of a "testing subset" of roads, can you give me any other examples of displays that broke? I fixed a problem with my modification, and it works for Interstate 76, but I would like some other roads for testing if possible. Thanks. stmrlbs|talk 08:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting them now. stmrlbs|talk 04:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Full protecting these pages to prevent any further nonsense. This was a bad call; look at what happened the last time. --Rschen7754 04:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

fine by me. To whom do we submit needed template changes? stmrlbs|talk 08:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• After* getting consensus, you add {{editprotected}} to the talk page and briefly describe what you want to do. The administrator may refuse your request if you don't have consensus. --Rschen7754 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"the administrator".. does this mean any administrator? or are you talking about yourself? stmrlbs|talk 04:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Any administrator. --Rschen7754 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)