User talk:George1935

Welcome

Hello, George1935, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DP 17:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

George1935, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi George1935! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Homeopathy

Your recent editing history at Homeopathy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You are kidding --I m reverting borderline vandalism -- I m discussing the matter in the talk page citing first rate sources and i m reverted ---with the excuse--- "there is no discussion" and be called names. --George1935 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The lunatics are in charge of the asylum. Many thanks for your support, and attempts to fix the page. --Brian Josephson (talk)

Indeed.--George1935 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - David Gerard (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Please read my warning at the edit warring noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

New approach

Hi George. I do not think your continued engagement at Homeopathy is accomplishing your goals and I recommend you take a break, without any loss of face. I doubt if any of the editors you have been trying to work with there thinks the article has found its perfect balance but I also doubt they are interested in major adjustments. I think you probably have a lot to offer in finding the right balance but I advise treading lightly. I think that in future discussions you will have the most effect with simple, straight forward, factual statements that at the least appear to arise from good faith assumptions. In general, I advise against personalizing any discussion or imputing the motives of others. I think you will have the greatest impact if you engage your fellow editors from a collaborative and collegial stance, making or suggesting small steps and see where it goes. Thanks for your efforts. Jojalozzo 17:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Honestly I have no agenda or goals- I have nothing to do with homeopathy in my academic life and other career. I have to say that every time I look at this article and forum is a shocking experience : wikipedians suppose to be the "good" guys promoting all the values of the enlightenment - logic, curiosity and intellectual honesty and all the virtues which keep one immune from the worst form of -isms - and I mean fanaticism . This mob mentality prevails in these forums under the pretention of the "politically correct guy" who ( with an absurd self-confidant style ) is able to give very easy answers to very difficult questions and "eliminate" everybody else who has a different view. . I have nothing personal with anyone - but this abusive style is really annoying - all the reverts even from administrators with the summary - there was no discussion- are really something. If you read the discussion and what I m saying you will see what I mean - Finally it is not the homeopathy it self which so much interests me but how much people are ready to delude themselves to justify an irrational belief despite all the sources which state the opposite to what they believe. If you are curious take a look and you will form you won opinion. --George1935 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I would hope you at least have the goals of improving the article and finding the right balance of pro and con to fit the scientific evidence. When I referred to "your goals", I was thinking of just that, which is all Wikipedia asks of anyone; more ambitious agendas tend to be counterproductive. I recommend finding ways to work within the personalities of the editorial community rather than opposing those that rub you the wrong way. Life is short and Wikipedia is pretty much just a bunch of words written by a bunch of smart monkeys. :-) Jojalozzo 03:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Improving the article, yes indeed! A number of editors seem to have the goal of improving the article only in a narrow legalistic sense, not the usual sense of producing a better, more informative, more accurate article. The game is the thing, not the quality of the page. It's the result of the system, of course. If one wanted to create a situation where ignorance would systematically trump knowledge, it would be hard to think of a better way to do this than wikipedia. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Homeopathy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

A notification seems redundant in view of the messages above—imposing changes by edit warring is never acceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a consensus for your change? I did try afterwards to communicate with you but you did not reply. You deleted my message- --George1935 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing

Hello. First of all, I would like to apologise if I came of off as rather aggressive and/or totalitarian in the recent discussion on homeopathy. Please remember that your contributions and input are welcomed, even if it sometimes seems as if they aren't. Of course, those contributions need to be accurate and relevant. Discussions like the one on homeopathy are needed. Then again, there is a point when one has to admit that they have lost the debate. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Move on "to pages other than homeopathy"

I suggest you either do the smart thing, or remove this deceptive comment from your user page:

• "This user has been forced to move on to pages other than homeopathy."

While you're at it, stop your attempts to use Wikipedia to push a fringe agenda, regardless of whether you do it with this account or IP socks. You will not succeed. You may as well try to do something more positive here and establish better rapport with other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Listen I do not have any one helping me- or agenda - BUTI like neutrality and dislike bullying- This is a personal attack - remove it now - and I will not say please. Regarding "forcing" this is what I have been told- "I would suggest keeping away from fringe medicine and pseudoscience altogether, as you don't seem to understand yet how we deal with that sort of thing. Do you have any interest in the former Soviet countries, the Balkans, Crimea or perhaps Bollywood? "--George1935 (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"Told" and "forced" are very different things. Whoever told you that was making a good suggestion, and you would be wise to follow it. Continuing your battlefield behavior is counterproductive. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Some have asked me "Where is the evidence that you are being bullied"  ? and I don't know how to reply

You have to stop bothering me. I asked a good faith question citing sources and you should try to answer and stop writing nonsense about socks and clothes and agendas. --George1935 (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that I "told" you that after your declaration that you had been forced away from homeopathy. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 03:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia has any policy that tells editors not to violate causality. Brunton (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I m not surprised you justify and excuse name calling ( I I call you Dullman is OK I assume right) , posting personnel messages to interrupt talk pages discussion - false accusations that I using socks etc--- but to

"Violate causality " ? Please. I m asking good faith questions always using the best sources and you guys or girls - dont actually know your orientation - you are trying to disrupt the conversation by posting personal messages in the talk page of the article or to make the sections of the talk page so long and unreadable- that ordinary readers would not dare to start reading, you are calling names, you personally attack me that Im using "socks". Can you stop and reply meaningfully and rationally ? --George1935 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Right there is another false accusation. Nobody has called you names. How can you continue to say that - it is a most ridiculous assertion. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not holding that against you forever but isnt that you edit  ? ?Flogging a dead horse George. Is your real name Dullman? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)--George1935 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The suggestions above are, indeed, good ones. You need to start editing less controversial topics until you get a handle on our policies. Your behavior on homeopathy is tendentious, usually involving repeating arguments without listening to the replies. I came here to reiterate what I said on the Homeopathy talk page. You need to work collaboratively on a new aspect of the article or drop the stick and move on to another topic altogether, otherwise I'm going to take this to ANI. You seem to not yet have enough grasp of wikipedia to be able to abide by option 1, and option 3 is extremely likely to result in you being sanctioned. I'd highly suggest going with option 2. I'm not bullying you; I'm giving you sound advice, as an experienced editor. Please understand that more behavior like what you've been trying on Talk:Homeopathy will end up at ANI, and quickly.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It should also go without saying that any of the editors commenting here, who are offering you advice, would undoubtedly be happy to answer questions about policy or help you acclimate. Not accepting their help is not an excuse to continue working uncollaboratively. If you want help, post to one of our talk pages. But again, don't keep arguing at Talk:Homeopathy in the same way you have been.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds bullying and kind of abusive to me and to any good faith person; you dont to like to have people who disagree with you in the talk page -- You even reverted me with the false summary that in the talk page everybody disagrees with Brian Josephson I m not surprised you justify and excuse name calling ( If I call you Dullman is OK I assume --?) , posting personnel messages to interrupt talk pages discussion - false accusations that I using socks etc---I asked you in the talk page why the article uses blogs to support different statements and you object to the recent edit using as a source the website of a well known scientific organization. Did you reply to that ? Can you remind me your response? Can you please tell me what specific edit I made AFTER you talked to me in the talk page that it is not in line with the wiki policy, Please be specific and use diffs ? --George1935 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I still see little reason to claim lack of good faith on your part, but the alternative is that you are incapable of understanding Wikipedia policies, and should be banned under WP:COMPETENCE. I don't see how any reasonable competent person who has read Wikipedia policies could consider that you have been bullied. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course you don' t see it . Where is the evidence? And I agree with the competence comment ---I dont have a network of supporters - so if I break civility rules, and the wiki rules- my supporters can pretend I did nothing wrong. -- and I m not competent enough to .....correct the conclusions of reliable sources in order to make them more "honest". I agree with you. George1935 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that you are being bullied? And it appears you are not competent to read and paraphrase the conclusions of reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course I m not competent to read them.; let alone to correct them to make them more "honest" as you did -by changing the quote of the most reputable source to comply with the "skeptics" point of view. If you don't want to see the evidence above in this talk page - I can not really help you. People choose to not see what they do NOT want to see- you are not alone in this. --George1935 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Are the Cohrane reviews summaries honest enough or not --as Arthur Rubin says

If a quote, it would still need to be translated from scientific jargon into English. Do you see anything else I've done there, aside from using an editor summary which is my opinion, rather than verifiable fact? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No, This is false. You changed the best review into something they DO NOT SAY saying the best review is DISHONEST; This is tragic and comic together - while I just kept the ENTIRE QUOTE without changing ANYTHING ---who is more neutral ? me or you? The cohrane reviews are written in plain english. And also they have a Plain language summary- but even the scientific jargon is quite simple - and it is kind of pretentious to say that it is not simple to read. I will edit the oscillo and I will prove you that you dont want to be neutral. Follow me there. --George1935 (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if the quote you provided is accurate, I removed technical detail which you apparently did not understand. The report did specifically say there was no compelling evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't ...understand ? That's a very strong argument i have to say. It reminds me- Brian Josephson quote - "you simply don't understand how we operate in these parts!' You see, I suggest using the exact quote to avoid bias ( even mine ) and you want to change it to your version. Whose edit is more neutral mine or yours? Unless we accept that the Cohrane reviews are ..dishonest as you said. Then I agree with you. --George1935 (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The paper cited in the homeopathy article is at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/192/8/homeopathy-what-does-best-evidence-tell-us. I can't say I find it impressive. The author finds excuses for whittling down the tests to a mere 6 in number. The summary says: "The findings of the reviews were discussed narratively (the reviews’ clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis)". So, no proper statistical analysis. One of the six studies says "This review found preliminary data in support ...", and another "though promising, the data were not strong enough", on the basis of which one might well say the evidence is suggestive even though not compelling. The fact that Ernst keeps quiet about this and that you only find out if you open the box is extraordinary, something that one might well characterise as deliberate concealment.

It is a truism that if you have insufficient data you can't prove your hypothesis even if it's true. And if you look at the numbers you'll see that the data is slender indeed. You might as well say "I found no compelling evidence that the lost key was in the cupboard: I spent 30 seconds looking it there, and didn't find it."

Another problem with this paper: the six different papers refer to 6 different ailments. If homeopathy worked well for some and not for others, you'd never discover this if you adopted Ernst's approach. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Aren't you doing "original research" there? Actually, I can't say I find the article impressive, either, but it's the best meta-analysis attempt we have, and it meets WP:MEDRS. Perhaps, in the article. "no compelling scientific evidence" could be replaced by "insufficient scientific evidence"; even though Ernst specifically states "no compelling evidence", he also says "insufficient high-quality evidence". That would also be misleading, at least to George, but it might be allowable. I don't see it as an improvement, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure I'm doing original research, and so I should be in this context, whatever the rules may say (and are they supposed to apply to talk pages, anyway?). But, purely as a matter of common sense, a paper that even you don't find impressive should not be mentioned in the article at all. That way lies madness! --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the best review Rubin ? Ernst himself and wikipedia state that the Cohrane reviews provide the best evidence and even himself wrote in his blog that he does NOT completely agree with the Cohrane review summary in OSCILLO - Take a look. Again - I m suggesting a quote from the best review ( according to wikipedia ) to avoid introducing any bias and you are saying no - my version is closer and more "honest" than the "quote" of the best available source in Oscillo. Is this a joke? --George1935 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, do check what Edzard says on his blog:

you are absolutely right! the one that was withdrawn was Vickers et al on the same subject.

so is homeopathy disproven?

strictly speaking, science cannot prove a negative. but there comes a moment when something is as good as disproven and we then use the term in a more casual sense.

specifically with homeopathy, there could always be a different potency that might work or a different condition for which it might be effective. in such a situation, it may be wise to take into account plausibility which, for homeopathy, approaches zero.

as to the Cochrane review, I have strong reservations: the authors are all very strong believers, the studies are poor and Boiron-sponsored, the effect is tiny, etc.

— Drowning in a sea of misinformation. Part 9: 'Homeopaths Without Borders'

Or as he said to me, there is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work, no way it can work, and no proof it does work. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Well. I m not arguing that homeopathy works or not - I m arguing for correct and precise presentation of the sources whatever they say. Thanks for the comment- showing that Cohrane review on Oscillo departs from Dr. Ernst's conclusion. Therefore at least for oscillo there is not CONSENSUS among the authors of the studies as the article falsely states. --George1935 (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you're really not. You're arguing for the most sympathetic interpretation possible of the most supportive sources you can find. You are exploiting the difference between the measured tones of science and the promotional tones of quacks, to assert that the balance point lies on the quacks' side of neutral. You'll fail for one simple reason: we've seen it all before. Many times. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

My edits are proof for that. Only reputable reliable sources.You seem upset and this does not help you to converse in a civilized manner. Please calm down. --George1935 (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Guy, you are quite the wordsmith! Very brilliantly put. You've nailed the real issue here. I'm going to save that quote of yours. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

OMG Jess you spent so much time to find these diffs - This is so funny - just to pretend that the "evidence" should be presented "fairly" so the community can judge my actions. You must have a lot of free time to waste- you don't need to do that. The typical "uninvolved" Admin would find or invent an obscure reason to ban me. --George1935 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I will not participate in this absurd thing for the following reasons.

1.My talk page and my edits are evidence to any good faith good intended person that I edited in line with wikipedia principles - for the curious, intelligent and intellectually honest editors.

2. I think this is ridiculous process where people have already decided to ban me - this is the usual practice with people who disagree with the article - take a look in the talk page and you will see what I m talking about. and most important -

3. if no admin found no fault the way I was treated ( the evidence is here ) then something must be wrong with this forum and I cannot trust the intentions and the good faith of the "judges" .

Quoting -Brian Josephson "The lunatics are in charge of the asylum".--George1935 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And again if I may: the language that we see at the beginning of this section eerily reflects the approach used by the Mafia. 'Bullying, surely not: you simply don't understand how we operate in these parts!' As far as I am aware, wikipedia people have never actually killed any editors; they merely remove them from the scene by alternative means. I trust I'm not being unfair with these comments. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Disclaimer: just to be clear in case of any doubt: it should not be taken that I had some specific individual in mind when I made the comments that George has quoted. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• On the other hand, a cynic might speculate on whether a brand new user who pitches up with dozens of edits a day making the same demands that have failed to prevail over a period of years, displaying no other interests at all, and showing knowledge of Wikipedia policy from the outset, is actually a genuinely new user at all. It would not be the first time a banned user had returned to the scene of his crimes using a sockpuppet. Whatever, this is headed only one way. You're not welcome at articles on homeopathy. You're very welcome to find a less contentious interest. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this the spirit of wikipedia? You did not even wait for the artificial process called AVI to end before you come and drop this unfriendly message. At this moment 2 editors who disagree with me are conversing productively in a new section. And instead of encouraging and promoting that you keep posting hostile and bullying messages and false accusations; despite the bullying mentality which prevails here - breaking every possible rule of civility which you pretend you dont see in this talk page) ( and wikipedia), I remain civil and productive. This behavior really might be relevant to what Brian Josephson above described -and I m sure he had no one specifically in his mind. --George1935 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. WP:AGF is not a suicide note. Next? Guy (Help!) 00:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the fact that people with different userids all say the same thing doesn't necessarily prove sockpuppetry or that they are in collusion with each other. It might simply be that they are the ones with a proper understanding, so naturally they will all say the same thing. There is only one way to be right, and a lot of ways to be wrong. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

How much experience do you have in sockpuppet investigations, Brian? I am willing to bet that it is very much less than I have. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello, and thanks for the message you left on my talk page! I do disagree with you, but, I do believe that a proper discussion of the neutrality of the homeopathy page had not occurred. It's somewhat ironic, seeing as homeopathy is part of WikiProject Scepticism. Scepticism is supposed to be about careful consideration of the merits of a particular idea. This means that sceptics have to be tolerant, open-minded, questioning, listening, discovering, and thinking. I strongly recommend the article "Why We Do This: Revisiting the Higher Values of Skeptical Inquiry," by Kendrick Fraser. I'm always glad to have an open, honest, civil conversation about any topic. Let's hope the new discussion actually resolves something and leaves everybody feeling as if it was a good discussion... Also, would you like me to call on random editors to offer their opinion on the homeopathy page? Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, please allow me to make a suggestion: I would propose that it would probably be a good idea to edit other pages besides the homeopathy page: this would help build up your reputation and would make you seem credible in the eyes of other editors, some of which seem to believe that you are a single issue editor. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversion and canvassing

I am not "an editor who does not participate in the talk page". I am an administrator (since 2007, a long time in Wikipedia terms) with a huge number of edits to homeopathy and related subjects, and their talk pages, among my tens of thousands of edits. You, on the other hand, are a single purpose account about to be topic banned for precisely the kind of futile, sterile and tendentious debate you attempted, and I closed. Don't do that again, eh? Because , frankly, I haven't the patience.

Oddly, having said that an admin closure of a pointless debate was not in line with policy, you then violated WP:CANVASS. That was a very silly thing to do. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be kind and respectful--George1935 (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC).

You have to earn respect George, and you haven't. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Give him the chance to earn some respect by engaging him in a respectful, open, and helpful manner, not in an annoyed impatient manner. NHCLS (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

George, believe it or not, I am being kind. I am being kind by telling you, loud and clear, that you cannot achieve what you want in the way you are trying to do it. I think it is cruel to string people along. We have templates on WP:OTRS, sending people back to Wikipedia for various tings. When their email makes it plain that they have no chance, I always tell them so, because in the long run it is disrespectful not to. But I don't claim to be perfect. Your major problem is that you behave as if you have no capacity at all for self-criticism, and you are here on a mission for The Truth™. You seem not to understand that we have been here before. We banned Dana Ullman for essentially the same thing. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think George knows who Dullman is ! - Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Around here, Dullman is a well-known, previously blocked, editor. We occasionally get editors, who, like George1935, create disruption in the homeopathy-related articles, and who are suspected of being socks of Dana Ullman, hence the question of whether the editor is Dullman. It's not a pejorative or insult, but a query. An AGF makes that clear, but a mind seeking to be the victim of offense will interpret it otherwise. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you have been topic-banned from topics and articles involving homeopathy, broadly construed. While there wass not consensus for a full topic ban on WP:FRINGE topics, consider this a warning that it the behavior that resulted in the homeopathy topic ban being enacted spreads to other subjects, expansion of the ban, or other sanctions, will likely be swift. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow. This is like "elections" so to speak -- in ...North Korea. No surprises. A complete totalitarian approach. Scary. By "community" you mean 8 editors we have a content dispute decided to ban me from the talk page? How legitimate is this I wonder. --George1935 (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please make sure to read WP:TBAN, which discusses how topic bans work. Discussion of the topic (of homeopathy), even on your talk page, is covered under the sanction. I mention this only because every section on your talk page seems to relate to the topic, and if other editors post to them, it might encourage you to respond and violate the sanction. For that reason, I would encourage you to archive past discussions here. If not, you'll have to make sure to ignore them. Anyway, George, I sincerely hope you're able to find another area of wikipedia to work in while you learn the ropes here. If things go well, you may be able to appeal the ban in the future. If you need any help, you should know where to ask by now. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger's language is instructive, very instructive, in striking contrast to the politeness of Mann Jess. I'll say no more --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

And when your friendly village copper pulls you over for speeding, you'll also find that he tends towards the firm in his language. The notification of a topic ban is a significant thing. It needs to be done properly and it needs to make clear that it is not a negotiating point. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should mention the police, as I was thinking of writing a comparison of w'pedia and certain sections of the police that haven't exactly got a good reputation right now. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.--George1935 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

George1935, your recent comments are a violation of your topic ban. Please refrain from engaging at all. I suspect this was a misunderstanding, so consider this a friendly warning. If you heed it, there will be no need to seek a total block from Wikipedia. I suggest you gain more experience by editing other types of articles, ones which are totally uncontroversial. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

Per Bushranger's comment, you now have a two-week pass. Enjoy real life for a while, ping me when you get back, and we can talk about how to improve Parable of the Sunfish. Best, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will do. I m taking a break now. ( I still wonder how honest it is the editors who ( they "banned" me during a content dispute I had with them ) to address questions on my talkpage regarding issues I m not "supposed" to discuss anymore. ) I will leave the talkpage like that as evidence of the situation - so the curious editor can evaluate it . Not if Homeopathy works or not but if the process and the quality, and the goal of discussion promote the accurate presentation of the sources available --with minimum of distortion from introducing bias, including mine.) --George1935 (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Bushranger's is just one person's view. For most of us, two weeks is nowhere near long enough for a single-purpose account to demonstrate reform, and definitely not when the account's single purpose is promoting pseudoscience and fringe views, two behaviours that already sap much of the project's time and resources. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well. Can you stop the threats and personal attacks? It is about time. --George1935 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There are no threats or personal attacks. You seem to have a very thin skin and your constant harping about such perceived "threats" and "personal attacks" is pretty sad. Just stop focusing on it and admit you don't have a clue about how Wikipedia works. Only when you really and truly accept that fact will you be in a position to learn from those who know far more about it than you. Stop interpreting warnings and instructions as attacks. We need to see less defensiveness and more of a positive learning curve. So far I haven't seen an iota of indication that you're willing to learn, and that's sad. Your reaction to the topic ban has been very counterproductive. We need to see surrender, not resistance. If this had been a situation where you were being blocked, your reactions would have immediately led to more and longer blocks. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

George, you write, "I still wonder how honest it is the editors who ( they "banned" me during a content dispute I had with them ) to address questions on my talkpage regarding issues I m not "supposed" to discuss anymore."

You were notified of your topic ban by The Bushranger here (it was posted two minutes earlier on the ANI page). It is a simple matter to find all the edits to this page subsequent to The Bushranger's notification (just go to the edit I've linked to and click on "Next edit" until you get to the one that says "Latest revision"). None of the subsequent edits, as far as I can see, can be interpreted as addressing "issues you are not supposed to discuss anymore". Brunton (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

We need to see surrender, not resistance? I m trying to get used to this language and all the restrictions of speech. I have - of course - no intent - to promote anything. This is absurd. I stop editing the article and the talk page and i m trying to take a break but every 5 min someone comes here and drops a message like "We need to see surrender, not resistance" or I should be reformed etc. Am i suppose to agree with you ? I think it is allowed to have my own opinion - maybe not? I m not edting anything and m not bothering anyone. Why you keep talking to me? --George1935 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we need to see you drop the stick and back slowly away from the deceased equine. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) with George.Speaking as someone who has worked with George a bit, I don't think further discussion of the topic ban, or other problematic behavior, is likely to help. He hasn't caused any problems since the ban, which is good. I think the best way forward is to give him some rope and let him head in whichever direction he plans to. George seems to have some interest in poetry, so it's certainly possible he could become a productive contributor, especially with help from the OP. I think continuing to discuss what he's doing wrong is likely to just encourage more problems, rather than encouraging the problems to end. I'm not saying I don't agree with what's being said; I'm just saying that I'd like to see what happens when he's given space, help, and a new topic, without biasing the result based on my suspicions. Perhaps that's just my take on it. Good luck, George.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec 2x) George1935, No editing means no editing of your talk page, too. This is not an argument you're going to win, and, unfortunately, trying to respond may be seen as violating your topic ban. Just let it go, and we'll start up on a more interesting topic in two weeks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You're both right, and I'll back off and see where this goes. I'm hoping for the best. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Purple Barnstar

		The Purple Barnstar
		Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia as well as for remaining resolute in your commitment to the project and its ideals. One day, hard science will triumph over pseudoskeptics. Don't give up! -A1candidate (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Under discussion at WP:ANI. As, no doubt, you expected. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for violating your topic ban relating to homeopathy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not talk about homeopathy but about behavior; and did not intend to raise any issues about the topic----- You banned me form the discussion and then you keep talking in the talk page referring to me and my arguments --Blocking or banning someone from a discussion and then keep arguing as he were still there is not the kindest thing you can do. So your block is kind of abusive which is not a surprise for this talk page. --George1935 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2014 (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).

George1935 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here I did not talk about homeopathy but about behavior issues ; and I did not intend to raise any issues about the topic as you can see from my edit----- You banned me form the discussion and then you keep talking in the talk page referring to me and my arguments --Blocking or banning someone from a discussion and then keep arguing as he were still there is not the kindest thing you can do. So your block is kind of abusive which is not a surprise for this talk page George1935 (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You may not make any edits to articles or talk pages within the scope of your topic ban. This is covered, clearly, in the link Mr. Jess gave you above. Your edit there was precisely the kind of problematic behavior which lead to this ban, and I cannot see any logical reason why you felt this would have been constructive. Kuru (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2014 (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.

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).

George1935 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not make any edits to articles or talk pages within the scope of your topic ban related to the topic but that behavior referring to my edits- I also did not intend to raise any issues about the topic----- You banned me form the discussion and then you keep talking in the talk page referring to me and my arguments --Blocking or banning someone from a discussion and then keep arguing as he were still there is not the kindest thing you can do. So your block is kind of abusive which is not a surprise for this talk page. Logical reason??????? I thought all reasons are logical----- no? George1935 (talk) 2:17 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:05, 14 April 2014 (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.

George, a topic ban means you cannot edit the pages associated with your ban. You can't discuss the behavior of other editors at that topic, not at the topic pages, the topic talk pages, here at your page, or anywhere else on wikipedia. Don't make any thinly-veiled allusions to the topic. And don't argue over what a topic ban is. If you can get your head around this, great, we'd love to have your help elsewhere. If you can't, the next block is likely to be much longer. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I m just asking from the talk page - to stop referring to me and my arguments- I dont understand why at least you - you don't object to this kind of behavior. How you justify to yourself that? Even if you think you are in the right side of the argument- isn't dishonest to block or ban someone from the discussion and then keep arguing to him and his edits as he were there? Why should not I object to it ? Give me - in good faith- a valid reason and I will accept it. --George1935 (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Do NOT reply to this, even after your block has expired, since such discussion would be a violation of your topic ban, but, you can think over this. What you're saying is disingenuous and illogical. Your comment was made when no one was talking to you or referring to you. Even if they had done so, you should still not violate your topic ban. The previous comments were not directed at you, mention you, or have anything to do with you, so no matter what, you had no right, even without a topic ban, to make that illogical comment.

Another thing. Don't expect to always be treated fairly. This is not a democracy. We have policies, guidelines, and unwritten rules. If you learn them and follow them, you'll get along fine, otherwise not, and you'll be disrespected and have a hard time. It's your choice. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) ::George, the TBAN doesn't have an exception that allows you to continue discussing points you had raised prior to the ban; nor does it allow you to shut down the conversations of others just because you can no longer participate. I expect you'll be back editing there in a week, and you'll be blocked indefinitely shortly after that. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No I did not expect that everybody should stop talking on the issues but at least to stop referring to my arguments and stop replying to me when I m not allow to discuss anymore. IS not that the minimum of respect one can show? I guess not in a talk page with "unwritten rules"-bullying included. What a noble and intelligent way to achieve consensus : just ban the editors who disagree and keep arguing against them when there are not there. Best wishes.--George1935 (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeating your disingenuous and illogical argument won't help you. Your comment was made when no one was talking to you or referring to you. The last time anyone addressed or mentioned you on the Talk:Homeopathy page was a comment made immediately after you were first topic banned and no one realized it. You didn't reply then, and now you chose to get offended several days later, on a different thread. That's really weird, because you're not even replying to that comment! You use a nonevent (no one was discussing you) to manufacture an excuse for making a comment. You had no justification for making any comment at all, and certainly not for the nonsensical reason you give, which is simply untrue. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Brangifer, I looked at the talk page and here's what I think happened. George suggested several new sources for the article; later, he was topic banned. Another editor then continued the thread by asking about using one of the sources George suggested. I think it's entirely reasonable that a new user would think that he was banned from his own conversation about a source he had discovered. George was wrong to edit the page, of course, but (from a new user's perspective) I don't think it's difficult to see the justification. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Activate your e-mail

Please go to the preferences section (you can see that on the top right when logged in) and activate your e-mail. It is important to cite references for every sentence you add to wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.191.43 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't use email, in general. Do you have any example to show that I did not cite references for every sentence I proposed adding to any article in wikipedia ? Besides that, it became clear to me that the quality of the references cited is irrelevant, even if they are first rate. They must clearly say that Homeopathy = placebo or to be inconclusive and the conclusion could be easily switched to negative by slight alterations of the meaning of the text. Otherwise they will not be considered for inclusion even if they are really exceptional sources. --George1935 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC) --George1935 (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, George1935. I think we're running out of ways to say this. A topic ban means you are not allowed to discuss the topic, the article, or hypothetical citations in the article. If someone wants to discuss it with you, all you need to say is "I cannot reply due to a topic ban." I understand that this probably seems draconian, but until you demonstrate that you can contribute here under this restriction, that's the way it's going to be. The alternative is an indefinite block. There are 4,499,372 other articles to choose from (as of a few minutes ago), and we could sure the use the help. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We can't discuss homeopathy here, so please activate your e-mail like I said. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.75.153 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You can appeal your topic ban after about a month, but please edit articles only other than Homeopathy for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.216.220.184 (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)