User talk:Nraden/archive 1

Wiley protocol

There is a new page, Wiley protocol, which should be used to directly address that particular type of BHRT, rather than using either Wiley's own page, or the BHRT page. Thought you'd be interested. WLU 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

Please read the talk page guidelines. WLU 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

If you are actually Wiley's husband, or have regular access to her, you may want to consider uploading a picture of her to the Wikimedia commons so it can be posted on her main page in any language. Alternatively, you could upload it to english wikipedia alone, through the upload file link in the toolbox just below the search bar.

WLU 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest advice

If you have a close relationship with the subject of an article, I strongly recommend that you raise any concerns the article's talk page, and refrain from making contentious edits to the article itself. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The other contributor also has a conflict of interest - she is the webmaster of a site that is not only hostile to the subject PERSON (she doesn't understand the actual issues), but she also adds entries that are deliberately misleading.

Neil Raden 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what actions I should take against a malicious editor. Neil Raden 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving and sockpuppeting

Note that though the removal of warnings from your talk page is not prohibited, it is preferrable to archive page content.

Also note that the actions of User:72.205.193.253 strongly hint towards sock puppetry, and can a) potentially extend a block and b) result in an ip address being blocked in addition to a user. It is people who are blocked, not accounts.

If you have a dispute with another editor or editors, you should read the dispute resolution policy. In general, policy is very helpful for answering most questions, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with these policies and policies in general. Arguments geared towards policy rather than people are much more useful and convincing to regular editors. Also note that in general, the {{helpme}} template will get you a quick response to questions (here). WLU 00:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Legal Threats

I recognize that you sent me two emails. I am not an administrator, so cannot unblock you. Your email to me contained a continuing legal threat. I very much doubt any administrator will unblock you until you retract all legal threats against Wikipedia and Wikipedia volunteers. If you have problems with people pushing POV on an article related to your client, you need to follow the appropriate processes which are laid out in the conflict of interest policy. Right now you are behaving like an angry mastodon (read this too), hurting your own interests. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 12:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read all of these materials. I am acting on behalf of T.S. Wiley, my wife, to insure that the mischief of Debv and her colleagues not besmirch her reputation. I've read that a living person is not in a COI situation if they are correcting misstatements and fabrications about themselves. That is my role here, and I never concealed it. Neil Raden 05:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I never (meant to) threaten Wikipedia or its administrators, only Deborah Vanderstadt who has continued to slander T.S. Wiley in every venue she can reach. Look at the history - she removed Wiley's scientifc papers on the thin premise that the phrasing was clumsy. She vastly overstated the experience of the doctors who signed Erika Schwartz' letter. Again, check the history. There is no balance to what she does and no other person to police it except me. Neil Raden 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means, check the history. I didn't say that the phrasing was clumsy. I said, "I don't object to this per se but it feels terribly awkward. Add 'Credentials' section maybe?". It was not inappropriate content IMO, just awkward in its placement. So I copied the sentence into the talk page for discussion. Then you created a 'Credentials' section and put the sentence there (without discussion). And in response I did nothing of course. Because it was simply an out of place sentence and I wanted to know what others thought should be done with it.

I respectfully suggest that you look up the concept of "slander" before calling a lawyer.

As for "vastly overstated the experience of the doctors who signed Erika Schwartz' letter," I honestly have no idea what you are referring to. I don't think anyone else does either. Please provide a link. This will help others understand your grievances, give me a chance to answer your accusation (which is only fair), and help avoid any misperceptions that you might find undesirable.

(FWIW, I've since had a productive conversation with Jehochman which has convinced me that it would be better for Nraden and me to refrain from making non-trivial edits to the main pages, and confine our contributions to the talk pages.) --Debv 08:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And the mastadon article is really cute, but you don't know what you're dealing with here. There is no compromise, Debv will do anything to destroy Wiley. It's like Bosnia here. We need a peacekeeping force. Neil Raden 05:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been away from my computer and unable to answer you until now. You have sent me an email that I believe indicates you still are not rescinding your earlier legal threat. It is your right to use the legal system, and to inform others of your intent to do so. However, the privilege of editing Wikipedia cannot be exercised at the same time that such legal warnings are outstanding. It appears that you wish to do both, so I am not going to unblock you at this time. What it would take for me to unblock you is a statement like this:

"I hereby declare all previous legal warnings I have made on Wikipedia to be null and void. I have no intent of initiating legal action on behalf of myself or anyone else, including T. S. Wiley; against the Wikimedia foundation, its trustees or employees, or any Wikimedia users, including User:Debv. I will refrain from making any further legal warnings or threats on Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects."

Short of that, I cannot unblock you, as you are still in violation of WP:NLT, which we consider non-negotiable policy. You need to make such a statement here on this talk page, which you can still edit while you are blocked. At that time, you may contact me by email or use the {{unblock}} template to get another admin to review your unblock request (see WP:UNBLOCK for more detail). ··coelacan 07:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"I hereby declare all previous legal warnings I have made on Wikipedia to be null and void. I have no intent of initiating legal action on behalf of myself or anyone else, including T. S. Wiley; against the Wikimedia foundation, its trustees or employees, or any Wikimedia users, including User:Debv for their past activities on Wikipedia. I will refrain from making any further legal warnings or threats on Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects." I have only slightly modified this statement from what you have suggested. If you still refuse to unblock me, I will pursue this in mediation. Neil Raden 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree to that statement because I reserve the right to take legal action against Debv for her actions beyond Wikipedia, through her libelous website WileyWatch and her independent activities. Suppose I were having a problem on Wikipedia with someone with whom I had serious grievances? In what kind of logic would I have to agree to refrain from acting against them outside the boundaries of Wikipedia? I will reluctantly agree to refrain from taking legal action against her for actions on Wikipedia as there appears to be adequate means to redress greivances. If that is satisfactory, then I will post the statement when you say so.Neil Raden 03:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

coelacan. please respond to my note above. I would like to be unblocked. And so long as others here abide by the suggestion that those with a COI limit their edits to the discussion page, I will do the same. WLU, your assistance please, coelacan has not been very responsive. Neil Raden 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

By my appraisal, it seems you are still attempting to employ the language of legal threats ("I reserve the right etc.") while editing Wikipedia. Our policy is very clear; you cannot do both. From WP:NLT: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we require that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." I could be wrong in my reading of the policy; I will ask other admins to review this. ··coelacan 12:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I have offered to remove my legal threat for anything debv does here, in Wikipedia. According to the policy, you have no reason to continue the block. There is no reason for Wikipedia to restrict my legal rights elsewhere because they don't affect the process here. I have greivances against this editor for her actions in other venues. Debv has boundless antipathy for Wiley uses every venue to belittle her. If and when her actions cross the line and become actionable, I will pursue remedies. But I am agreeing to waive that here. Please respond promptly. Neil Raden 06:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So if and when my actions outside this venue cross the line and become actionable, you reserve the right to sue me. But nobody has ever challenged your right to file suit should the appropriate circumstances ever arise. Why threaten it? And why here on Wikipedia? --Debv 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether it makes any difference, but for the record I'm not concerned about legal threats against me from this editor, inside or outside Wikipedia. --Debv 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Result of the discussion thus far is to not unblock. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#after legal threats, unblock-maybe review (static link) ··coelacan 23:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:64.60.253.123 has modified one of the threats, so for clarity I repeat them here: "If no one else will correct the record, I will continue to do so or take legal action against Wikipedia." [1] and "I WANT TO ELEVATE THIS IN WIKIPEDIA AND HAVE IT STOPPED OR I WILL TAKE LEGAL ACTION." [2] --Debv 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you expect one to reconcile your first threat, "I will continue to do so or take legal action against Wikipedia", with your later statement, "I never (meant to) threaten Wikipedia or its administrators, only Deborah Vanderstadt"? It seems to me that you're willing to make false statements in the hopes of covering up your offense. --Debv 05:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

let's review this again

I feel like we are talking past one another, Nraden. Perhaps I have not been clear enough. I am not asking you to waive your legal rights. What I am asking you to do is to nullify the legal warnings you have already made on Wikipedia, and stop making more. But you have recently said, "I have offered to remove my legal threat for anything debv does here, in Wikipedia. ... If and when her actions cross the line and become actionable, I will pursue remedies",[3] and followed that with "I have no intent of initiating legal action ... for their past activities on Wikipedia".[4] Continually asserting your right to pursue legal action is not necessary, and it certainly is not going to convince me to lift your block. ··coelacan 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I will remove all the threats, now that it is understood that I haven't waived my right to pursue debv now or in the future for her actions elsewhere. I was not aware of the restriction of legal threats here, and I agree, it makes sense. No one would be able to post anything otherwise. But you are not aware of the things that debv and her colleagues do and I cannot and will not say anything here that could be construed as waiving my right to pursue remedies. But, once again, I am excluding activities from Wikipedia. I will not take legal action, or threaten to, for anything she does here. I do wish, however, that the Wikipedia process worked a little better, becuase without my intervention, the T. S. Wiley article and the Wiley Protocol article would be full of misstatements and exclude many relevant facts. Neil Raden 15:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You're almost there. You've said "I will not take legal action, or threaten to, for anything she does here." Do you also agree not to make legal threats or otherwise reference legal proceedings or options here for anything she does elsewhere? ··coelacan 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would I do that? I will not threaten her here, but if she commits a tortious act elsewhere, I want to be perfectly clear that I am not waiving a single right to take action against her. I want to be sure that this statement I make here does not limit my rights elsewhere, that's all. Neil Raden 20:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may have missed the nuance of your statement. I will not threaten debv, or anyone else, with legal action on Wikipedia, nor will I take legal action for anything debv or anyone else does on Wikipedia. If debv, or anyone else, commits an act that is actionable elsewhere, whether I take action or not, I will not speak of it on Wikipedia.Neil Raden 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you're in compliance with WP:NLT now and I'll unblock you. If I remember correctly, I may have also blocked your IP directly, so I'll go find that in my logs and unblock it as well. ··coelacan 21:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Neil Raden 05:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Advice for both sides of this controversy: Take your issues to the press. If you can get your perspective published in a reliable source, somebody here can include that material, with a reference to the source, in the Wikipedia article. I suggest you befriend editors who are interested in working on the articles and help them by providing sources that they can use. Keep in mind that we will cover all sides of a controversy and ultimately it is up to the reader to decide which side makes a better case. If you have strong case, you should have no fear of this situation. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Further advice - "We need a peacekeeping force." If you are serious about this, you should move forward in the steps of conflict resolution. This is not the place to play out a personal war. You may also want to use proxies to manage contributions to the page. WLU 14:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Do you still require assistance? If so, I would rather do so via wikipedia as I actually use it more than my e-mail account. Your talk page is on my watchlist, so I will know if you reply here. I am unaware of the content of your e-mails to other users, so you will have to fill me in on any relevant details. Also, if you wish to be unblocked, you MUST read up on the policies that are being cited when you are blocked. I have found that 90% of my concerns and questions are answered. I can not help or advocate for you if it violates policy. I say this as a statement of fact, not to disuade you (and based on you apparently not reading policy I have cited in the past). If both yourself and Debv read and followed policy, almost 100% of your conflicts on wikipedia would be resolved (but probably half of your contributions would disappear as well for failing WP:RS). The unfortunate fact is that the lack of publications and sources for the Wiley Protocol limits what can realistically be included on the pages.

Anyway, post requests or questions here, I'll respond as quickly and best I can.

Final note, I don't know what you are referring to re: the Darwin comment. I need a diff! WLU 14:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page removal

Hi,

Regarding your recent edit to your talk page, you are within your rights to remove any comments. However, archiving of discussions is the preferred option as it allows unfamiliar contributors to read comments within context. In addition, the information removed is still present in the page history and accessible to anyone with interest and a bit of knowledge so removal is somewhat futile. As usual, I've got policy links :) (here).

My apologies for not being able to meet your earlier request for assistance, I was out of the country and did not have access to a computer. However, it appears that coelacan did reply so I am assuming no more help is needed.

WLU 20:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he has not responded to this, nor has he removed the block:

"I hereby declare all previous legal warnings I have made on Wikipedia to be null and void. I have no intent of initiating legal action on behalf of myself or anyone else, including T. S. Wiley; against the Wikimedia foundation, its trustees or employees, or any Wikimedia users, including User:Debv for their past activities on Wikipedia. I will refrain from making any further legal warnings or threats on Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia projects." I have only slightly modified this statement from what you have suggested. If you still refuse to unblock me, I will pursue this in mediation. Neil Raden 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Neil Raden 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are speaking to coelacan, not me. I'll leave him a message on his talk page to let him know. WLU 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was repeating what I had written to him on this page, in the thread above, FYI. Thank you. Neil Raden 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He has not responded to my statement above. Neil Raden 00:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaving a message on his talk page is about all I can do; I'm assuming that since he blocked you, he is an admin, and therefore much more familiar with policy than I am. In addition, there's always the possibility that he's not online. No matter what, the next time he logs on, he'll know that your comment is there, so patience is a necessity. Any further advocacy must be on your own actions and you are not blocked from reading pages, so your best best is to address all the policy-based issues he's citing or discussing. About the only other thing I can do is bring it to another admin's attention so they can make a decision (which I would only do coelacan does not respond in the next couple days). No matter what, I will not advocate your ability to bicker with Debv or sue anyone related to wikipedia. Give him time and I would be willing to run back and forth to his talk page with your points (though really he is probably well aware of them, and would be willing to discuss them here. All the admins I've run up against have been very reasonable; were I you, I'd try asking why you're still blocked). WLU 00:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Claudia Imhoff

From Talk:Claudia Imhoff

:That isn't me, but I have to wonder, WLU, what you're doing in this page, a subject you know nothing about, and reverting my changes. This is my industry and I know this person personally. Are you just following me around? What's the point? Neil Raden 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nraden (talk • contribs)

Contributions are publically accessible. As part of my editing and reverting, I check up on the contributions of many editors. I keep a closer eye on certain editors. Please use the talk pages to discuss changes to the page, this sort of thing can be better addressed on my talk page, not this page. Also note that 'knowing someone personally' does not make you a reliable source. Please see WP:BIO, adding unsourced information to the biographies of living persons is a very bad thing. I've also noticed your attempts to bring up the Wiley pages with other editors, it's a good move as you'll get more attention from the community. WLU 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if there is something wrong with Wikipedia or if it's just you. I know this person professionally, I've read her books, attended her seminars and dialoged with her as a peer. That's not a reliable source? If I just told this to debvb and she put it on Wiley Watch, would that be reliable? You are VERY selective about the way you apply these policies and it's making me weary. Neil Raden 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read WP:RS, you would know that you are not. Besides, I've talked to her as well, and attended all of her workshops, and my conversations with her have shown me that you are completely wrong about everything. That's how I know you are wrong.

Do you see the problem with people being reliable sources? The very first line of WP:RS is "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." You are not a published source and neither is your blog. Note that I don't actually care if you have a blog. WP:BIO, which CI falls under, is even stricter. If you had read it, you would see the first paragraph, which says:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States and to our content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia.

There's some bolding there to emphasize the key points. How many times do I have to point to policy before you read it? I'm not citing policy because I like using wikilinks. Policy is the highest standard we have for knowing what should and should not be in an article.

If you're going to do anything about the WP, or CI, or anything else, please do it, or stop complaining. Or, read the policies. Or, edit other areas of wikipedia so you aren't so much of a WP:SPA. WLU 11:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with you??? I removed "thought leader" and "visionary" from the page and replaced it with "industry figure" or something like that and you have the nerve to take me to task over it? Forgive me, maybe I've overlooked a source that credits CI with being a visionary. I changed "one of the most respect authorities" to "an authority," "authored" to "co-authored" and "popular and dynamic speaker" to "frequent speaker." What I'm beginning to pick up from you is that in order to be a good editor here, you don't have to know what you're talking about. You've demonstrated that to me on two topics now. I have taken your suggestion and contributed to some other articles. But when it comes to the business intelligence industry or the Wiley Protocol, you need to pay attention because you clearly are uninformed. 72.205.193.253 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Neil Raden 23:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my reversions were to my version. I'm not sure which one is you as there's several anon IP's editing the page, but most of the back-and-forth reverting (like this one) was (for me) to revert to the version with the {{orphan}}, {{notability}} and {{ad}} tags, as well as to retain the version that didn't have amazon links that violate WP:EL. Don't forget to WP:AGF that the changes I'm making are for the good of wikipedia, or failing that, use the talk page. And from my reading of the page history, you didn't edit the page, though several anons did. WLU 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jfdwolff

User:Jfdwolff has replied to your comment, as well as my identification as the problematic editor. Should you wish to move forward with comments from him, you'll have to provide a condensed version of events and disagreements. diff. WLU 15:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates

I've made a couple changes to the WP draft - mostly just to make it easier to work with on the talk page. I added a reflist, a separate references section, some lines to contain the 'working draft' and closed a citation template. You may want to consider using the following tools, they generate citation templates quickly and you don't have to worry about typing errors:

• pubmed/isbn Diberri's template generator
• Google scholar autocitation

If you get an ISBN off of amazon, Diberri's tool (which I just tried and it didn't work, first time I've seen that) gives you the book.

Also, my preference is to place any punctuation before the citation, otherwise there's an ugly gap between the last word and the period/comman/colono because the citation number is a superscript. I don't think there's a guideline though. WLU 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned on the WP talk page, WP:FOOT is handy too. WLU 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying, but buried with the day job. Neil Raden 06:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypogonadism

Hi Nraden,

I saw your comment on Jdfwolff's talk page - some anon IP added a bunch of unsourced, spammy links and info (actually replacing an NIH link with some bullshit spam) back in October. It's a good catch, I've reverted to an earlier version. WLU (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Neil Raden (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just in general, most unsourced info can be removed without much justification on any page, it's up to the 'add-ee' to provide sources if their addition is challenged, unless this is over-ruled through WP:CONSENSUS (generally when one person challenges something as unsoured, but many other editors on the page have some sort of experience in the area and all agree that it's common knowledge and difficult to source because of this - something like 'the scientific consensus is that continental drift is a fact'). Also, if you ever read something that makes you go 'huh, that seems spammy and weird', try looking through the article's history and see if it was added by a single contributor. It's possible it's vandalism or spam that just hasn't been caught yet - such was the case on hypogonadism. WLU (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will. Thanks. My intention was to not become a Wikipedia editor, but I guess it's impossible to do it just a little. Now, on the Wiley Protocol article, I did what Wikidudeman asked (and you, subsequently), but he's disappeared. I think SandyGeorgia has made some questionable decisions without discussion, particularly labeling Dr. Taguchi an unreliable source. She presented this material at the same medical conference (ACAM) that debv cites as a source for "concerns" about the WP. I'd really like to get some balance here. Let me try tp explain. SandyGeorgia said that a doctor making a statement on his/her website is not reliable, but a doctor (or scientist) interviewed on another website is. So why isn't Wiley reporting Taguchi's findings to the Senate reliable? She even used the PEACOCKery criticism. Neil Raden (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my mind the claim sourced to Taguchi was peakocky - it claimed support, on a medical page, for an unsupported, really, uninvestigated (or at least unreported) protocol. The Wiley Protocol, as yet, has not been reported in a peer-reviewed journal at all that I recall. For medical articles, wikipedia has a separate manual of style and standards for reliability. Medical articles on wikipedia tend to be pretty controversial, but at the same time there's usually a lot of research (or at least some) performed by scientists/doctors and reported in peer-reviewed journals. The result is a general agreement that for medical articles (and the WP falls into that cateogory), peer-reviewed journal are basically the sources for the article, particularly in terms of effectiveness, advantages, disadvantages, etc. A senate report is not a medical source; were you to provide that as a reference in a peer-reviewed journal for any scientific claim, you'd be laughed out of the room by the peer-review panel. The senate is a source and a review board for political, popular and lay audiences, not doctors.

In a nutshell, the standards for medical articles is always peer-reviewed journals and the first place you should look for sources is www.pubmed.org. Other sources for claims, irrespective of the standards for the rest of wikipedia, are irrelevant when it's about medical issues. I didn't realize this until I started working with SandyGeorgia rather recently and noticed the comments and guidelines that were cited. It's a limitation of how you engage with wikipedia and the community - confining most of your edits to a single set of pages, which you are heavily invested in, gives you a very biased sample of what wikipedia is about. Even my involvement is unusual, on many pages you'd get no long-term editors involved. This one has three.

Incidentally, SandyGeorgia is, from what I can see, a fantastic editor, very well respected, with an incredibly high edit count (114th in terms of total edits), which is pretty high considering the number of contributors to the project is in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands. Criticize him/her at your peril, s/he knows what s/he's talking about. At the same time, you should get a very reasonable reply to your comments. WLU (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If only peer-reviewed medicine is allowed here, then, PLEASE, let's get the Wiley Protocol deleted. Why are we still talking? We could keep Wiley, I suppose, since she's published and has three or four listings in PubMed. As I've said before, there will be journal articles soon, but why are we rushing this? It only creates another plotform for her detractors. Neil Raden (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

<undent>You misunderstand. Even were there never, ever, ever any peer-reviewed sources published on the Wiley Protocol, it's still notable based on the coverage by the NYT. It's notable due to this coverage, therefore it's never going to get deleted. But as far as any medical claims go, because there's no medical information, you can't make any firm statements about it's effectiveness or efficiency. It will never be deleted due to that one NYT article alone. However, because it's eligible for peer review as a medical topic, only peer-reviewed sources can be accepted regards any actual medical information. Something like Tension myositis syndrome is comparable I suppose, or reflexology, therapeutic touch and even Chronic fatigue syndrome. At one point all of these have been notable for controversey, but as research is undertaken, they can also be explored medically and scientifically. Notability only determines if the page exists or not, it doesn't have anything to do with the contents really. That's determined by WP:RS. If research starts, and consistently is published on the WP, eventually it will be in a state like CFS is now - lots of medical referencing, forming the main body of the text, with much smaller sections for the controversey that once existed/still exists. And note that just publications in pubmed isn't enough to make someone notable, but they could be used to add text to a page about the subject of the publication. WLU (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1) I have made no claims in the two paragraphs above, but I still can't get them published. 2) You said for medical topics, "only peer-reviewed sources can be accepted." Then why do you accept these criticisms that are not peer-reviewed? 3) the first sentence in the current article uses the words "controversial" and "promoted." That is horribly slanted. All BHRT is controversial. In fact all HRT is controversial. When I check those articles, I don't find the word controversial. That NYT article says that three of the docs who signed the letter say BHRT needs more research. Why isn't BHRT similarly noted as controversdial? Promoted? Where is the reliable source for that? What exactly does promoted mean?

All I want, if you are going to accept criticism of the WP, is to at least inform the readers what it is. It does not do that now, editors have agreed we should do that, but we're making no progress. Neil Raden 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you've problems with the other BHRT articles, or HRT articles, feel free to edit them. If they are indeed controversial, then this should be noted. You'll get feedback hopefully from editors on those pages, and I'm guessing that the NYT article would be a pretty acceptable source for a statement like 'BHRT needs more research'. And are the criticisms of the protocol, or of Wiley's qualifications and the marketing of the protocol? There's a difference. WLU (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's deconstruct this. Wiley's qualifications include reliable sources - published peer-reviewed articles. Two books published by major publishers. Chapters on hormones is medical school textbooks, wriiten by and attributed to her. Why aren't they reliable sources in yuor mind? You REALLY don't want to get into a discussion of qualifications because most MD's have none of the qualifications to understand the issues in HRT. Second, why are you bringing up marketing? Do you have a reliable source to document Wiley "marketing" the protocol? Even if yuo did, what does that have to do with the WP? If you want to blast Wiley, do it on her page, and we can go toe-to-toe there, but I demand that we get a fair description of the WP going. Neil Raden 03:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

You may be interested in the above discussion, in which your name is mentioned. You are welcome to add your own comments there. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Done

Done and done. WLU (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry Neil, I think I was indeed over the line with my comment on Debv's talk page, I've apologized here and let me apologize again - I guess I mis-read the tone of your posting or didn't read carefully enough. Also made some changes to Wiley Protocol in response to some of your comments. WLU (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Accepted, no big deal. Debv (aka Laurel) read it the same way and put it in Wiley Watch and her subscribers accused me (and Wiley) of threatening her physically. Sigh. Anyway, I still have some comments scattered around various pages, I'll combine them here. Neil Raden (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Laurel, of Rhythmic Living, is another individual in this drama. From what I gathered in our last conversation, she is weary of this conflict and wishes to move on. The fact that Rhythmic Living hasn't been updated in many months and has essentially dropped off the search engines (despite my advice) testifies to this. If it were my site, this would not be the case.

There are other obvious differences between the two of us, such as our writing styles and technical ability. If it weren't for me, she never would have known where certain e-mails originated from.

I personally believe that T.S. Wiley and Neil Raden are smart enough to have observed these differences. I cannot explain why they want others to believe that we are the same person, but it seems clear that they do.

This is not the sort of thing that I wish to be responding to here, on Wikipedia. But an attempt to conflate my identity with another's -- to make another person responsible for my actions and vice versa -- is not something that I can leave unanswered. Debv (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You can protest all you want, but until you can produce a real (person of your name) all evidence points to you being Laurel. These things you mention are just trifles. Anyone can disguise their identity in text. You/Laurel have saved you most venomous (and actionable) behavior for a meme you created to protect yourself. I'm not fooled by it. Neil Raden (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm growing quite weary of the personal attacks and incivility. I trust you are aware of what the consequences may be. Debv (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What Debv Deleted from Her Talk Page

I wrote, in response to her claim that my parable was an Irish curse:

Actually, since you feel that way, even though it isn't true, I submitted a comment to your site retracting it, but you didn't let it through, of course. You took my (obviously ineffective and spurned) holiday greetings and turned them into another greasy article for your hate site. Your manipulation of this medium is despicable. You dare to use a word like "scrutinizing," and place yourself above those you claim to scrutinize, but you allow no comments you don't agree with. Then you manipualte SEO to get your trashy site ranked high so that people who are looking for information can be misinformed by your vendetta. I am sick to the gills of it. You're not fit to publish anything.

You have been smug and condescending that the Wiley Protocol hasn't been studied, but you are personally engaged in an attempted smear campaign to interfere with the study at the University of Texas. Don't deny it, I have the email.

All I'm trying to do here is get a fair article written about the Wiley Protocol. You on the other hand, will stoop to any underhanded subterfuge or misrepresentation to discredit Wiley or, as you've said in public and been quoted, to "destroy" her. You should not be allowed to even comment here. You violate the spirit of Wikipedia with you actions,

And do not accuse me of making personal attacks. I sent you an olive branch and you broadcast to the world I was threatening to physically harm you. It's out there now for the search engines. That is a big daddy personal attack. You should be banned. Neil Raden (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

I've filed a Wikiquette Alert regarding your recent and past comments about and to me. Debv (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no excuse for the first sentence in this post, it's irrelevant to wikipedia and serves only to inflame. What happens off wiki should have no bearing on what happens on it. WLU (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of getting taken to the woodshed by you. You've already apologized once for it. I don't need an apology, just some objectivity about this languishing article. I made holiday greetings ON WIKI, they were cut and pasted to her website in a way to inflame her readers who chimed in with even more ridiculous interpretations. Net result, my name (actual name) and my family's are hanging out on the internet for search engines to grab (hosted by a webmaster who seems to understand SEO) associated with words like mafia, thugs, threatening, violent, curse, etc. This started ON WIKI and is very much a WIKI issue. Perhaps you'd like to, instead, find a policy prohibiting this kind of scummy behavior. Neil Raden (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're neglecting to the cause of this problem: Do not threaten people with violence, even as a part of a "holiday greeting." Do not make personal comments irrelevant to constructing a better encyclopedia. Just stop. We don't police what people say on their blogs, sorry. If you threaten someone with violence and they post about it on their blog, then maybe you'll learn not to so grossly violate WP:CIVIL. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You're neglecting the facts. I didn't threaten anyone. Now please retract this statement of yours and try to stick to the facts. You just nade a personal attack on me. Shall I report you? Neil Raden (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've researched your history here I see that you spend a lot of time on procedure and policy. I don't see that your contribution on the Wiley Protocol article has really added anything, and now you've come along and accused me of precisely the thing I didn't do but that the "other party" claimed I did. Why don't you leave us in peace, I don't see that you can add much value here. If you some feel for the subject matter I;d feel differentlyNeil Raden (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was directed here based on the complaint mentioned above, because I am a long-time contributor to the Etiquette Alerts Board. Now, that shouldn't matter - you cannot demand that I be an expert on the Wiley Protocol when all I'm asking is that you follow one of your basic policies (WP:CIVIL). However, if you want an expert, you've got one, since I've spent months responding to complaints about civility (and if you have a problem with "policies" and "procedure" then go somewhere else, because obeying Wikipedia's policies is not optional). You made a comment in which you wished another user physical harm. That is totally unacceptable and there are NO circumstances that could justify or explain away such conduct. Rather than cop to it, you deny all wrongdoing and demand that we do something about stuff posted outside Wikipedia? We are not the internet police, and we don't deal with people's conduct off Wikipedia. We do, however, pay close attention to people's conduct on Wikipedia, and your comments were unacceptable and you need to admit it, learn from it, and avoid making such inappropriate comments in the future. And no, this is not a personal attack - telling you to obey WP:CIVIL is obviously within policy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to tell you this one more time, even though you have ignored everything I've said already. I did not wish anyone harm, I did not threaten anyone with violence. After telling the parable, I told her to SOAK HER ANKLE and wished her holiday greetings! Follow the metaphor. The twisted ankle means you're ALREADY my enemy, not that I'm going to twist it for you. And telling her to soak it meant ease up on the enemy thing. Any normal person would interpret this as an olive branch, not a threat. I guess normal is the operative word here. You HAVE NO RIGHT TO ACCUSE ME of this when I have stated that that was never my intention. You've jumped to this conclusion. Are you the judge and jury? Are you in a position to rule that that is the case when I've said repeatedly it was not? The other person trumped that up because that is what she does. She publishes hateful things about me and my family on her site. Do you think I'm an idiot, to threaten someone here? I foolishly thought that a little levity and good cheer would help in the holiday season with that person. I won't make that mistake again. Listen, I don't care how many complaints you've listened to, you have no credibility with me after making a hasty and misinformed judgement without evem seeking my interpretation. Now, I want you to retract your accusation. Please. Is that civil enough? Neil Raden (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had made an "accusation," I might consider retracting it. I've told you to keep your behavior in check. If you don't, you will have to face the consequences. Get off your soapbox - what people do on their own time is not something for you to rant about on Wikipedia, and it does not validate you wishing another user harm. If you already knew you had a problem with this user, why wish them harm in your "holiday wishes"? You want to respond to intervening third-parties (who simply ask you to be civil) by flipping out about how you haven't done anything wrong and how your family is under attack, and how they have "no credibility"? That's a great way to demonstrate that you aren't interested in making a good-faith effort to be civil - further complaints against you may not be someone asking you to keep your behavior in check. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that writing, "it does not validate you wishing another user harm" is an accusation? I would appreciate it if you got off your soapbox. Civility is one issue here, but accusing me of something I didn't do is unacceptable. That's my policy. I didn't wish anyone harm, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, it isn't true. I get the civil part, I hear you, but you're not going to get the last word on my page until you retract it. Neil Raden (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not an accusation. It doesn't matter what "[your] policies" are, your conduct is unacceptable and me telling you so is not a violation of any policy. If you demand the last word, then respond to this with whatever you like, but you have been duly warned that such behavior is inappropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's separate issues here. I said I heard you about the civility thing. What more do you want? But you are not hearing me, and unless you retract your accusation, I'm going to escalate it. You can't put things on a public, searchable forum that are defamatory and untrue. So let's break this discussion in half. I'm acknowledging that I breeched the rules of conduct. There is nothing more to say. But you need to review what you've written and acknowledge the harm you've done to me. This is quite serious. I'm not going to drop it. Neil Raden (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Telling you to behave is not an "accusation" and I am under no obligation to "retract" anything. You feel free to "escalate" whatever you want, but I'm just going to tell you now that it's not going to get you anywhere. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be civil here and not say what I'm thinking. You can accuse me of not being civil, that's OK, I'm not. And I will, as I'm doing right now, restrain myself. But you are obfuscating around the central issue - you accused me, more than once, of something much more serious than not being civil. You've flat out stated I threatened someone. You've done it repeatedly. Now I'm asking you to again to retract that. If you don't do this I am going to pursue this vigorously to clear my name which you have so casually besmirched here. This has already filtered back to my professional practice and I've been asked why I would threaten (to kill, yes that what I was asked) a woman on the Internet. You have no idea how much damage this has caused already. This is precisely what the other party was hoping for and you've been a big help to her. Neil Raden (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're on Wikipedia, using your real name, editing an article about your wife's medical protocol, and you go so far as to wish another person (with whom you have ongoing disputes) harm in a sarcastic "holiday wishes" message. That is uncivil, it is inappropriate, and if this kind of participation on Wikipedia is "doing [you] harm" then you have two options: stop behaving inappropriately, or leave Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not responsible for the problems you cause yourself in real life when you behave inappropriately on Wikipedia, and my telling you so is not an accusation, and if it were I am under no obligation to retract anything I say. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Now you've made another untrue accusation - I'm not editing this article. I will now pursue this against your unbearable arrogance. Kindly explain what my options are since you are an expert on the policy. (talk) can you be of assistance here? I'm stunned by his instransigence. Lack of civility can make things unpleasant, but browbeating others with policy will ruin Wikipedia. It is only his opinion that I threatened someone. i did not. Neil Raden (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not even going to respond to this anymore. You have absolutely no legitimate complaint against me, this is utter nonsense, and it's irrelevant and distracting. The worst thing I did was say "editing [the Wiley Protocol article]" instead of "commenting [on it]," and that makes no difference in my comment and is clearly not relevant or meaningful. Get over it. Behave. Do not wish people harm. Or do. Whatever. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1

Copied from User talk:KieferSkunk#Cheeser1:

I appreciate your comments to Cheeser1, except those I noted on his talk page. He has, on record, accused me of threatening physical harm to a woman, an action that is already having repercussions outside Wikipedia. I cannot tell you how seriosu this is. I need you to either help me get this retracted, or guide me to the next level of complaint. Thanks for your help. Neil Raden (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, the discussion was on my talk page. Neil Raden (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neil. I'd like to make it clear that, while I don't agree with the manner in which Cheeser1 responded to you, I currently agree with the substance of what he said. In short, I agree with his assessment that your "holiday greeting" to DebV was out of line, per WP:NPA, and that it could be taken as a personal threat of bodily harm. Whether you intended it that way or not, that's apparently how she received it. What followed was a continuation of bickering between you and her that had apparently been going on for months, for which you were previously blocked.

Please understand that I am trying to treat everyone fairly here. I obviously do not know all of the history of this situation, and honestly the details of your dispute with DebV don't interest me. What I am basing my judgement on is the history of your dispute with DebV as I was able to research it by reviewing your Talk page, DebV's talk page, the original Wikiquette Alert against you, the conversation between you and Cheeser1, and your WQA against him. I made a couple of missteps in handling Cheeser's side of this, and as a result he now feels that I support your side of the dispute. I am not on either side - it's not for me to take sides, but to interpret policy and violations thereof.

I don't condone statements that come across as veiled threats, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the adminship here at WP don't take them lightly either. Such things can and will get you permanently blocked, even if there was no direct threat or any intent on your part to follow up on it. If nothing else, such statements can be (and often are) considered harassment, which is also not tolerated here on Wikipedia.

So basically, my opinion is thus: I feel that, while you did not make a direct, actionable threat of violence against DebV, your statement was close enough to cause serious concern of harassment and/or veiled threats, and I feel she was justified in seeking action against you. I also feel that Cheeser1 was correct in taking the discussion to your talk page and trying to explain the situation to you, though I do feel he pursued it for longer and allowed himself to get more upset about it than he should have. That was what I tried to address with him.

I feel that your responses to Cheeser1 basically boiled down to "You're wrong, I did nothing wrong, and I'm sticking to it no matter what you say." I personally would have left it at that and advised DebV to move up to the next level of dispute resolution if she felt the need to do so. (Keep in mind that WQA is a non-binding board to help people resolve civility differences and get back to constructive editing - people there rarely take punitive action against editors, but instead refer or escalate the matter to the appropriate authority board such as WP:ANI when appropriate.)

That's about all I have to say on the matter for now. Thanks for your time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have some more to say about it. If you do a Google search on the "threatening" passage, you will find endless references to it as an Irish "blessing" or an Irish "prayer," but only one site as a "curse." Now you and Cheeser1 have blindly accepted Debv's complaint that I was threatening her when there isn't one iota of evidence that I did. There is no threat, veiled or not. As I tried to explain, my grandfather used this in a kindly way, never to wish harm on anyone. You've been misled by the other party who has some sort of axe to grind and trumped this up and I'm being damaged because of it. I don't appreciate the whiney way you depict me, either ("You're wrong, I did nothing wrong, and I'm sticking to it no matter what you say.") I already agreed that I haven't been civil and agreed to work on that. I have nothing more to say about that, but I cannot just let this stand because it's easier for you to sweep in under the carpet. Cheeser1 made a serious error in judgement, not just by his manner, but by the substance of what he said in print, and now you appear to have done the same. I am not going to let this go. Neil Raden (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Irish blessing, prayer or curse, it still can be interpreted as a veiled threat. Emphasis on "interpreted as". To the unenlightened person who has never heard the phrase before, it can be quite offensive. And as I said, threat or not, it is the kind of interaction that can more easily be labeled as harassing, and given what I've seen of your interaction with DebV, I'm not at all surprised that she'd react that way to it. At this point, my issue is not whether it was a threat, but the fact that it was taken as either a threat or harassment. I have no personal stake in the matter, other than trying to counsel both you and Cheeser1 on how to avoid conflicts like this in the future. I'll let someone else more qualified and experienced deal with whether or not what you said was a threat of any sort.

(rephrasing my earlier comment) Keep in mind that other people don't necessarily see things the way you do. What was a harmless, perhaps even well-intentioned "blessing" to you may cause great offense to someone else. Whether that makes sense or not, that's one of the harsh realities we all have to deal with.

Now, honestly, I have no interest in getting involved in the same kind of argument with you over this as you've already had with Cheeser1. If you feel that this needs further escalation, you are welcome to file a complaint at the WP:ANI. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)