User talk:Seeyou

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipal (talk | contribs) at 20:52, 5 October 2008 (→‎Removed your comment: links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is a participant in
WikiProject
Alternative Views.

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Seeyou! Thanks for making the copy edits over on the Bates Method article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Seeyou, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see disagreement adding sourced information in the amblyopia article

Please see dispute resolution for some ideas on how to resolve disagreements. --pgk 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-02 article Amblyopia disagreement added citation

I note your request for mediation and that what you are seeking is "A comment of a third party and a warning to famousdog about his fake arguments and unrespectful behaviour". I'm not sure mediation is what your looking for. If its a third opinion on the matter you are looking for, you might want to list the matter at WP:3O. As a mediator, it wouldn't really be my place to take a view on the subject or to issue any warnings, though I would ask both sides to be civil and respectful of each others views. I would try and guide your discussions towards reaching a mutually exceptable compromise. If with that in mind you're still interested in mediation, get in touch and I will see if Famousdog would accept mediation. Otherwise you might want to try WP:3O. Whatever you decide, best of luck. WJBscribe 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for allowing the dispute to be resolved easily. I know it must have felt like I put a roadblock in a way to educate people about something you believe in. Of course, there are other ways to educate people about Bates method if you wish. I'll leave this here instead of Talk:Amblyopia as a good word in case you get in any other disputes. RB972 11:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation requirement?

Does the recent development in this dispute mean that you no longer require mediation? If so I will close the case. WjBscribe 04:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Yes, problem solved. Seeyou 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request

As you may have seen, the Arbitration Committee has decided not to hear the arbitration case you recently filed. Several of the arbitrators recommended that you continue to perform other means of dispute resolution, such as seeking a third opinion on your disagreement. Good luck. Newyorkbrad 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another arbitration?

I have taken you to arbitration over your baseless accusation of sockpuppetry against myself and User AED. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Bates_Method Famousdog 14:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going, you're almost in breach of 3RR

Seeyou, whilst I have attempted to compromise and include your material, you are simply reverting my edits and this is getting f*cking tedious. Do it once more and I'll report you for 3RR. Famousdog 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method abuse

Seeyou, Will you PLEASE F*CKING STOP claiming that I am User:AED, you wierdo, cyber-stalking f*ckwit! For the last time, I AM NOT USER AED. Stop attempting to slander me and try being constructive. Famousdog 16:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And stop blind-reverting. I am not thrilled with your edits to Bates Method. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you are not thrilled with my edits ? Seeyou (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you appear to be reverting to a version consensus disagrees with, which is generally seen as POV-pushing or worse. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case read the discussion for the objective reader. I have not read one solid argument from the others. Read also for the objective reader part 1 of x in the discussion page. This article is edited bt very political parties information should be presented as objective as possible. Compare the 3 party version with the current version. I miss one party ! Without this party this article would not even be available. Seeyou (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the way you have been editing it, you are looking like you don't realize that one person cannot own a Wikipedia article. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not own wikipedia. But the person making this edits does :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AED ( When you can make this amount of edits you are being paid. Does wikipedia really give objective information ?! )

This person used to edit the batesmethod-article. This discussion is not about who owns wikipedia. It is about arguments to keep the three party version or change it into the current one. And the suggestion by Mastcell there is consensus is not true. It is not about me or any other editor. It is about giving objective clear listed quality information. Nothing more and nothing less. I will contact Mastcell about the no existing consensus Seeyou (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of paid editing, Seeyou? Extraordinary claims require equivalent evidence. Further, your link only shows he is linking talk pages to a WikiProject, and I see few edits to Bates Method. Guess again. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to my dear friend famousdog

I have not thanked you yet for the skeptic gardner information and ophthalmolgoy link you added. So hereby I thank you. Without you the discussion abouve would even take place. Seeyou (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Seeyou thinks that I'm AED. He also thinks I'm MastCell and several other users. He's wrong, but I have given up trying to persuade him of that fact. Famousdog (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not your friend, since you haven't ever treated me like a friend, only an opponent, therefore I suggest you leave out the sarcasm (which is the lowest form of wit). Regarding the "skeptic gardner information and ophthalmolgoy (sic) link" I supposedly added, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you explain further? Famousdog (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello??? Care to explain your comment? Famousdog (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Waste of time, I'm sure, but I'm taking your behaviour to arbitration. Again. Famousdog (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and you are the user who filed the request, related to edits/comments at Bates method. The case is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thanks you. MBisanz talk 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously suggest you stop

I suggest you stop forum-shopping to bless your POV on Bates method. If I see another frivolous RfC, 3O, RfM, etc. from you I will block you for disruption. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement

An editor has nominated Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batesmethod of Natural Vision Improvement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bates method‎

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Bates method‎ . Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please follow WP:TALK and work toward consensus. [1] --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please stop contributing to Talk:Bates method as you are doing here: [2]. If you are unable to follow talk page guidelines, unable to accept good faith of others, and unable to work cooperatively with others towards consensus, then perhaps you should find some other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. I strongly recommend you find a WP:MENTOR to help you. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Tiptoety talk 20:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} What is wrong with showing factual edits on the discussion page of the bates method article ?

It was your edit summary. Screaming (using all caps) is not the most civil way to get your point across. That was why Tiptoety placed the edit summary info on this page. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I was forced to use caps. The other editors constantly removed the summary. Without giving any real argument. The current sitauation is absurd. It is only the discussion page !Seeyou (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take this to an administrator at WP:ANI if you sincerely think you're following WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL. If you continue behaving this way, you're likely to be facing a block. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

There is a request for comments open on you here. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 21:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} what is wrong with my latest addition on the batesmethod discussionpage ? I have read WP.Talk could not find anything wrong with it. Seeyou (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Seeyou.
It looks like the users above were not necessarily concerned about what you were saying, but more about how it was being said. You said you read WP:TALK as suggested. Did you also read WP:CIVIL? It's easy when you're in a disagreement about the content of an article to become passionate, but it's important on Wikipedia to maintain civility and discuss things calmly and patiently. Sometimes other editors aren't civil either, but you're much more likely to find others to be sympathetic if you've been calm and sympathetic throughout the disagreement. You might also want to read up on edit wars just to get some perspective. —PurpleRAIN 20:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring example

Here's an example of how I'd refactor your comment, removing all accusations and questions to "skeptics" since this is not a forum where skeptics are expected to answer. You have brought up a possible reference, and quoted information from that source, which is what I've kept:

For the objective Reader part 14 of x. Complementary Therapy Assessment of Visual Training for Refractive Errors

To a skeptic editor,

Can you explain, when you go the one of the biggest bookstores on the net today Amazon.com and you search for bates method or Natural vision improvement, you will find a bestselling book on top of the list, why is the explanation / definition of this author not in the introduction ?

Another question : Why is not ophthalmology been able to give clear detailed statements why W.H. Bates is wrong with his findings ?

If Ophthalmology should explain why bates method does not work and advocates should explain why eyesight can improve why does not this happen ? Research is expensive I find it much easier to believe advocates can not afford research than ophthalmology.

I have found a reference of ophthalmology stating something about bates his work. See :

In this reference :

Complementary, or alternative therapies are a growing part of health care in America. Americans spend an estimated $14 billion a year on alternative treatments. Mainstream medicine is recognizing a need to learn more about alternative therapies and determine their true value.

So why is the bates method of today which has been updated on breathing, teaching, explanation, nutrition been almost entirely neglected ? The true answer because we skeptics want to neglect the bates method of today also called because of its update the Bates method of NVI.

(End of example) --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly do you read an accusation ?

> this is not a forum where skeptics are expected to answer.

  • The questions are not asked for an answer ! They are presented to make clear something is not right in this article. First a fact is presented then a question about that fact is being asked. Tt would be a very big surprise to me if they were answered. By striking through the questions you are making extra clear something is very wrong in this article. The questions are just for reading and to make the public think about how neutral the inforamtion presented is. By the way I used to be skeptic towards the bates method. You know what I was wrong. Am I being civil by the way ? Seeyou (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:SOAP and WP:TALK.--PhilKnight (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for reversion (Bates method)

I've been reading the abuse directed at you above, and I have to admit that I empathise with some of the remarks. Without being abusive, however, I'd like to make a couple of observations and suggestions:

  1. You seem to have developed a concept "encyclopedic", whose definition is known only to yourself, but which you use as a criterion for criticism. I'd like to request that you stick to using established wikipedia policies like NPOV, OR, RS etc. so that we all know what we're talking about and have precedents for precisely what is meant.
  2. Recently someone made an inaccurate but well-intentioned edit to an article I was watching. Since it was clear what he was trying to say, I just corrrected it, and he accepted that. Your method seems to be to revert anything which doesn't meet your standards of perfection. That isn't very constructive. It leads people to dislike you. I'm sure you're used to that, but there is a better way. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at hhe current cabalcase.

Focus on the paragraphs I mentionn. I hope you undestand I am a bit disapointed in my fellow editors. In my opinion edits should be based on facts. Peter Mansfield is not the dominant advocate of the Bates method according to the information you will find on the internet. Reviews. Amazon.com. And the thorougnness of his books explaining bates work. Great you started editing the BM article. Speak to you soon or not ? Seeyou (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I did have a look at the cabalcase reference but I have to admit I found it all rather hard to follow. My strategy and hope at this stage is to try to establish a relationship of mutual respect with all the other editors, although I'm aware that with such a controversial topic, that may be difficult. I certainly agree that edits should be based on facts.
I wasn't trying to single out Peter Mansfield for special attention. The truth of the matter is that I felt that a few references to modern Bates Method books would be helpful, and the ones I selected were the ones I happened to have on my bookshelf, with no deeper reason. I didn't realise until recently just how many texts there are. I definitely think that the existence of a large number of modern texts should be noted in the article, but I'd interested to hear the views of others on precisely how, and at what length.
The other point I've been trying to establish concerns the AAO study on "visual training", since currently the impression is given that this is objective evidence against the Bates Method. In fact it is no such thing. The scope of the AAO study is defined in the sentence Visual training programs to improve vision include eye exercises, muscle relaxation techniques, biofeedback, eye patches, or eye massages alone or in combinations and may also recommend using undercorrected prescription lenses and nutritional supplements. This is so far from being an accurate description of Bates technique that it is not reasonable to claim that their results have any relevance to Bates technique. I fell very strongly, therefore, that either some sort of disclaimer on these lines should be put into the article, or that the whole AAO study should be deleted. If you agree in principle, but merely disliked my wording, please offer one of your own. All the best. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the AAO link my advice is to read paragraph 34.3 Unique. About Peter Mansfield I think he is not the dominant advocatie of the bates method when you read other books and their rewiews. Looking at these facts there is one very dominant advocate his defenition was deleted once. Keep on reading the discussion page. Things will become clearer and clearer. There is an insturte involved in editing this article. They do not want a quality factual article which raises questions by the people reading it. The reacton by famousdog in which he explains SCIENCE is a strong signal. I think he defends ophthalmology. There is no other option I can thihk of. The only option for this article is a objective party improving this article. That is the reason the paragraphs keep their name for the objective reader part x of y merged with a title. When you connect this information you will start to see this article is suggestive negativ about Natural vision improvement neglecting facts or hidding them in the linko or references. For example the see clearly method and the reason why it has become illegal. It is not because it dit not work. It is because the company could not substantiate claims that the "See Clearly Method" improved people's vision so much that they would no longer need glasses or contact lenses. Seeyou (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to the mediator about the cabalcase reply of famousdog

> Firstly, I am not anybody's advocate.

That can be true people are not the way they behave.

> Seeyou's opinion that anybody making an edit to this article is in league against him.

Famous mentioned the conspiracy theory. I have got the strong feeling he is defending himself.

> Seeyou's headings were uninformative and therefore useless.

They were not uninformative from the advocate point of view. So very useful.

> I think once things have been stated on the discussion page they should be left to stand.

He allowed the removal of thomas Quackebush his defenition. Don’t be fooled.

> His edits to the article are of peripheral importance/relevance.

That is a good one. There are mainly 2 arguments for the skeptics to ridicule. 1. Bates his accomodation theory and sunning with open eyelids. These arguments are valid when you only focus on bates most early publications. Sunning ridiculing is not possible for the skeptics any more after reading the quote which is now present in the article. Accomodation ridiculing is also not possible when you truly study the bates method of today. Read what Thomas Quackenbush mentions on his website : Thomas Quackenbush says about the eye focus-mechanism.
In the February 1922 "Better Eyesight" magazine, someone asked Bates about the role of the ciliary (lens) muscle:
  • Q—2. What is the function of the ciliary muscles?
  • A—2. I do not know.
Not a great answer from someone who wants to overturn the Helmholtz lens theory of accommodation. Bates, as a result of his research and experiments on the two oblique, external eye muscles, believed that these muscles, which are wrapped around the eye somewhat like a belt, produced accommodation. More specifically, when the eyeball is "at rest" the two oblique muscles were relaxed, the eyeball was in a round shape and a person sees clearly in the distance. When the two oblique muscles contracted, the eyeball became elongated, and a person was then accommodating to see clearly up close. It is his opposition to Helmholtz' lens theory of accommodation that probably led many conventional eye doctors to reject much if not all of Bates' work. (Bates also believed that when the two oblique muscles are chronically tense, they elongated the eyeball to produce myopia, or nearsightedness: chronic accommodation!).

This information was in the introduction some time ago. For prove :

Very valuable information, But removed because of lack of consensus.

> However, this user is incredibly disruptive and frequently poisons the well on the BM article/talk page.

Turn around strategy of my friend.

> He even manages to object to edits by other users that (in my opinion) support his position.

That is an interesting one. I think he refers to the unique paragraph. That one is in fact very pro bates method. It makes very clear ophthalmology is not willing to really study NVI. Since Woods discovered vision can improve in 1946 and still they dare to state in a 2004 report :
  • Mainstream medicine is recognizing a need to learn more about alternative therapies and determine their true value.

The possibility to improve syesight is not about science it is about politics ! This reference makes this very clear.

> they are talking about elongation during development (ontogeny) not in terms of any role it might play in moment-to-moment accommodation.

This exactly what the bates method of today is about for myopia. Getting rid of the chronic accomodation. Again read TQ statement above.

Note also famousdog is really quite educated : elongation during development (ontogeny). Now look at paragraph For the objective reader For the objective reader part 1 of x.

Famousdog statement : ( famousdog saying the mind is the brain ?! )

The mind is the conscious part of the brain, see Mind Mind collectively refers to the aspects of intellect and consciousness manifested as combination of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination; mind is the stream of consciousness. It includes all of the brain's conscious processes. so really, User:Famousdog is correct.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mind is not equal to the brain. Because the mind can develop the brain. And the brain can not develop the mind. Ever heard the phrase Mind over body ? Famousdog and Me got quite an opposite point of view. He thinks eyesight can not improve drastically and I know eyesight can imprvove drastically. Look also at the context in which famousdog does his statement. Seeyou (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very hard to believe this person wants to improve this article and provide obective information and facts. Seeyou (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seem User:Famousdog IS trying to help improve the article in question, again I stress for you not to make possibly insulting statements.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
You are an optimist. Seeyou (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you are a dualist. The mind is what the brain does. The mind is software, the brain hardware. They are different ways of describing the same thing. You are also misrepresenting my position regarding vision improvement. Vision can improve via perceptual learning (see the work of Polat & Sagi or Denis Levi regarding amblyopia). However, perceptual learning takes very intense training, the improvements are small and they do not generalise to other tasks. For example, if you train for many days to discriminate different orientations of a line, you may improve your orientation discrimination, but this will not mean that you will have got any better on a different task such as vernier acuity, positional judgements, motion discrimination, etc. Famousdog (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Famousdog not really interesting. Except for your example of hard and software. Look at our article : The concept that relaxing the extraocular muscles can reliably or predictably reduce refractive error has not been substantiated by patients whose muscles are loosened during strabismus surgery. This is complete nonsense. Is n’t it. You change the hardware and do not change the software. Hey no improvement. This is very logical is not it. It is mind over the body. Brain over the eyes. Software can destruct your hardware. Your hardware can not change your software. Ever had a virus ?
Not really interesting? Not really interesting? One of the most important discoveries in 150 years of research on amblyopia not really interesting? That just shows how much you care about helping people improve their vision! If it isn't Bates, you aren't interested. Famousdog (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway famousdog statement : The Brain is the Mind, software is equal to hardware
Seeyou states : The brain is not equal to the mind, Software is not equal to hardware.
And the mind is not what the brain does !
Seeyou (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Famousdog statement: correctm the mind is what the brain does, please read Mind if unsure. Just letting you know that currently Ronz will not comprimise, but I am working on trying to convince him of your views.  Atyndall93 | talk  05:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You see what we're dealing with here, Atyndall. I believe we were discussing the mind/brain duality and then suddenly Seeyou is waffling about the extraocular muscles... Famousdog (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to reply, but I swore to remain neutral during this mediation.  Atyndall93 | talk  14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Regarding your MedCab case.

Hello, I am Atyndall and I have taken it upon myself to mediate your MedCab case here, just letting you know that I have reviewed your side of the story and have compiled a report containing facts and suggestions about the situation, it can be found here. I will also be writing a similar report addressed to User:Ronz and User:Famousdog when time permits. Feel free to discuss your report under the provided heading (Discussion of User:Seeyou's report) here. Happy editing!  Atyndall93 | talk  10:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your discussion.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have got doubts if famousdog and Ronz are going to react, but we will see.
Since famousdog said bye and Ronz has ignored the cabalcase almost completly.
Seeyou (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently talking to Ronz about the case, I will be adding more to the case soon.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you please respond to the replies I posted in your discussion section.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note also when Ronz is asked to give the alinea and line of WP:TALK ,WP:SOAP or other. He does not respond. ( Ronz refers to this quidelines to validate his actions. )Seeyou (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that is irrelivent at this stage as there IS a line in WP:TALK about your headings, he is just refusing to speak to you which is fair enough, see point 1 of the statement.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am trying to bring User:Ronz back into the discussion, please do not be uncivil, accuse him of anything or anything like that. His concerns on his talk page that you are being uncivil are valid and it is within his rights to express his opinion. I advise you not to talk to him until I think you are both calm enough to endure the discussion without becoming angry.  Atyndall93 | talk  23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to try and reach a compromise on the headings, do you agree on formatting the headings as seen here?  Atyndall93 | talk  10:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a test in the disccussionpage. Disadvantage is it won't be visible in the contents. Maybe a shorter one : title | obj. data & facts x/y. Seeyou (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) How about now?  Atyndall93 | talk  23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, F.t.O.R. is not a normal abbreviation. Laypersons should also be able to undestand what is meant. Seeyou (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) How about now? The box at the top explains what the headings mean. Feel free to change the exact text.  Atyndall93 | talk  14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in light of comments above, this is my current heading proposal.  Atyndall93 | talk  14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is to let go of for the objective reader. Because in my opinion an even greater improvement would be to choose for |obj.data&facts x/y. Makes very clear what kind of info is presented. For the objective reader can be interpreted as suggestive. I am also hoping that other editors will start using the label as well. Since For the objective reader is now mainly advocate bates method data/info & facts. Seeyou (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? Feel free to edit it and suggest improvements.  Atyndall93 | talk  00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this one ? * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Atyndall/Sandbox&diff=215994079&oldid=215994023
16:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Information is better than data. * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Atyndall/Sandbox&diff=215995205&oldid=215995166
Seeyou (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am fine with any of your suggestions, I'm just changed the code used to display your suggestion so that it looks good on any sized screen (see here), try resizing your window and you'll see what I mean.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I expected Ronz changed a perfect heading for further improvement of the article. Further improvement by skeptics and advocates. Since he has time to do this and no time to properly discuss his arguments with us. I want to to take the next step after a cabalcase. I like to hear your opinion / advice Atyndall. Seeyou (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently talking to Ronz about this and why he did it, I have recommended that until he is less busy that he refrains from reverting your edits unless he can discuss them with you. I have set the MedCab case status to Delayed, meaning that until Ronz is ready to talk about the case, nothing should be done (including changing the headings) until Ronz is ready to discuss. Before considering formal mediation or arbitration please consider staying at the informal mediation level at least until this discussion is closed.  Atyndall93 | talk  03:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ronz deleted your perfect comment about his removal. My conclusion is arbitration. A strong signal something is completely wrong regarding this article. Is the silence of famousdog and PSWG1920. It is also in favour of their point of view the headers can be filtered in importance and paragraphs contain clear solid objective information and facts. Look also for example at Homeopathy archive. How can you filter the most importand discussed subjects ? Seeyou (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before arbitration, generally all Wikipedia dispute resolution steps must be followed. Which means that you need to go through formal mediation before arbitration, however, I suggest before going onto formal mediation that I see if I can salvage this case and possibly solve the problem once and for all. 11:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You are the optimist. I am the skeptic regarding a consensus. Ronz initial argument of the non informatif was not really the reason. Having no time to respond also was not really true. Working together with people who do not want to cooperate won't work in my opinion. How much time do you think is acceptahle for waiting ? Seeyou (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I would say that waiting one more week would be sufficient for me to say that Ronz has cut himself off from this discussion.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently (from below), Ronz is still watching this discussion. I would say that he isn't ignoring anyone but does not wish to participate in this discussion, so the waiting one week is off the table. I'll will ask him one last time about this, and then if nothing can be done, refer you to formal mediation.  Atyndall93 | talk  05:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be very, very clear

My time is my own. The problems with Bates method‎ are extremely complicated and will require very large amounts of time to resolve. I've repeatedly tried to get others to help to no avail. What time I do have will not be spent working on a dispute done in extremely bad faith as an obvious and very uncivil attack on editors. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be really clear, factual and objective.

> Ronz : My time is my own. I agree spent it well. > Ronz ; The problems with Bates method‎ are extremely complicated and will require very large amounts of time to resolve. So lets just wait and do nothing like you.

  • Why are the prolems with the bates method article extremely complicated ?


In my opinion we just provide objective information & facts provided by reliable referenced sources. That is not really complicated is it. The main problem of this article is certain editors do not allow other editors with an advocate objective factual point of view provide information and facts. Pure censor is present as you can read in the cabal case :

. There has even been editor who removed the only referenced published definition. See paragraph : Removal of definition Bates method in the discussion page

Pure vandalism and none of the other editors reacted ! Is not that strange ! You are turning the facts around Ronz. That is a strategy which sometimes confuses opponents in normal live, but since every edit is verifiable in wikipedia your strategy won’t work

> Ronz : very large amounts of time to resolve. The label obj. information & facts x/y will make it a lot easier for future editors and the current editors to improve the article. So why do you block the filter / labels ( obj. information & facts x/y ) ? Have a nice day. Seeyou (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last suggestion

Ok, before you go to formal mediation (if you wish), I would just like to know if you think that this is an acceptable heading. If you think it is, just say yes, if you don't, say No and state a reason.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, My or any other username should not be mentioned. Only obj. information & facts x/y.

See : * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=216010397&oldid=216010330

Seeyou (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation then. Atyndall, Hereby I want to thank you for your efforts.Seeyou (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you can also assist with the formal mediation ? Seeyou (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


In Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Common reasons for rejection.

Paragraph : Parties do not agree to mediation

If all parties to a request do not indicate their acceptance of mediation within seven days, the request will be rejected without prejudice (that is, it may be revived at any time if the parties indicate acceptance of mediation, or a new mediation request may be filed)

Atyndall, I do not think there is a big chance Ronz will accept formal mediation. What do you think ? So after the attempt for formal mediation arbitration ? Seeyou (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just letting you know that the MedCab case has been closed as being unsolvable. I suggest you try formal mediation (if it works, it works) but I don't think that the arbitration committee will take your case. Thankyou for your help during this case.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Atyndall it is Censor. So inacceptable ! Seeyou (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Request for mediation is made

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/bates_method#Issues_to_be_mediated

Please follow WP:DR and WP:TALK

I'm happy to respond to specific requests, but you're probably better off finding a third party to help. I will not waste other editors' time by responding to general questions in article talk pages unrelated to the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comman Ronz explain This is a veak answer. I am quite sure you can do it if you try. Respect your fellow editors. Seeyou (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} See current starting editting war with RONZ in bates method article. In my opinion it is cristalclear vandalism and blocking real improvements of the article.Seeyou (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are in an edit dispute. Calling someone else's contributions vandalism will not resolve the situation. Following dispute resolution will give you a better chance of resolving the situation. I would suggest you request the mediation cabal assist everyone involved in finding a satisfactory solution. —— nixeagle 17:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EAR might be useful as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand you Ronz I do understand what Nixeagle said. Seeyou (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was recommending WP:EAR as another way for you to get some assistance. WP:EA describes the purpose or WP:EAR as, "Editor Assistance is intended as an informal method of requesting one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor who may be more experienced about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and how they may apply to the issue or situation that you are experiencing." They also have a list of frequently asked questions with answers that you may find helpful. --Ronz (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which question(s) ? All my questions are answered. Seeyou (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab request

I have closed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-03 Bates method. There are multiple previous attempts by MedCab to help resolve the ongoing disputes on that topic, two previous cases this year. I strongly recommend seeking out alternatives for dispute resolution for this topic. If a few uninvolved voices may be helpful, you should file a request for comments and/or ask for input on the content noticeboards (such as x or x). I recommend you try soliciting outside input first, before trying other avenues. If direct mediation is still necessary, I would recommend requesting formal mediation. Vassyana (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab request

I have closed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-03 Bates method. There are multiple previous attempts by MedCab to help resolve the ongoing disputes on that topic, two previous cases this year. I strongly recommend seeking out alternatives for dispute resolution for this topic. If a few uninvolved voices may be helpful, you should file a request for comments and/or ask for input on the content noticeboards (such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard). I recommend you try soliciting outside input first, before trying other avenues. If direct mediation is still necessary, I would recommend requesting formal mediation. Vassyana (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Vassyana. Since you have read this latest cabalcase.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-08-03_Bates_method
What is your opinion ? Imagine you are the public point of view. Is this scientific information of the AAO ( the date today ) important to be listed in the external link section ? If you are willing to share your arguments mention it in paragraph  : The American acadamy of opthalmology link listed in the external link section in the talkpage bates method ? Appreciate if you would share your arguments with us. Seeyou (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Bates method / Natural Vision Improvement

A tag has been placed on Bates method / Natural Vision Improvement, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Duplication of Bates method ‎

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


{{help me}} I think the talkpage of the Bates method article has become to big. The latest edits are not visible. To the user reading this info. Maybe you can also respond on the latest discussiontopics. Neutrality problem. Seeyou (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review proper use of article talk pages: WP:TALK

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. [3] --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand Ronz can you copy and paste the information you are refering to ? Thanks. Seeyou (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very simply:
Focus in improving the article, not on the editors.
Don't categorize editors.
Don't dismiss others' comments.
Don't promote original research. --Ronz (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, I still don't udnerstand. You did not copy and paste the information you reffered to. Does not matter, Can you give an edit which validates your arguments. Seeyou (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I still don't udnerstand." Then you need to find someone that will help you understand. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area would be a good place to try to get help. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, When I ask you the question for example : How old are you ? And you give me the answer for example : 11. You can not prove it very easy. When my edits are really not appropiate you can provide to prove really easy by giving the the wikipedia edit links. I think everyone reading this and our other conversations will become aware it is a quite a challenge for you to answer direct questions and really discuss a topic. Keep up the good work Ronz, Greetings. Seeyou (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NPA and try to follow it. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your latest removals of the Pro BM quotes in the BM article, your No personal attack policy is very selective. Seeyou (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} See what is going on above with Ronz. And what is going on in the discussion of the Bates method article. Elonka indirectly supports me with her removal of the nonsense discussion of the others. Please read the archive also. The paragraphs for the objective reader. Really absurd how they block progress. Sometimes one editor is right and the others have other intentions ! See also the cabalcases and this talkpage for further info. May be a comment in the current discussion is possible. At the moment when editors from outside contribute the discussion changes very often. Seeyou (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Below the removals of Elonka I fully support because of the complete nonsense.


See also the link below for further understanding.

See also paragraph : Quote A The only available definition in the discussion page. Removed by PSWG1920 !

You should probably take your concerns to WP:ANI#User:Seeyou. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued problems with article talk pages

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [4] --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on your behavior here: WP:ANI#User:Seeyou --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you contact Elonka and Dpbsmith if they agree with you :-) Seeyou (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been removed as disruptive. Further such disruptions will be reported with the recommendation that you be blocked or banned. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz and Jeske FYI your case was not worth archiving. See below :

Blocked

This account has been blocked pending identification as it may be compromised. John Reaves 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in email contact and he/she claims that the account is compromised, I advised the user to reset the password via email. Just my 2cents. — ^.^ [citation needed] 00:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell them to respond to my e-mail. John Reaves 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — ^.^ [citation needed] 08:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocked. John Reaves 20:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more problems on talk pages

"The public does not have a problem to see and find quality information about the Batesmethod of NVI. " [5]

You appear to be falling back on your old habit of making assertions about the abilities of others which you then accuse editors of not being able to understand or follow. This is harassment and disruptive. I suggest you remove it or reword it. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, Shall we ask an objective party or maybe a RFC. That would be really great would n't it. :-), regards Seeyou (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can do whatever you want. Just realize that it is just another violation that can get you banned or blocked if you continue. --Ronz (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My advice : If you are so sure start a arbitration case. Seeyou (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ronz

{{helpme}} and the Bates method article further improve. What is the best approach to deal with someone like Ronz. See discussion with him above. ( paragraph : Please review proper use of article talk pages: WP:TALK ) He clearly blocks the process, but he never crosses the edge. He never gives clear answers is only suggestive in refering to wikipedia guidelines. See his or her behaviour above. And his unimproving edits in the Bates method article. He never added any new information in this article. Are there any tools to get more objective editors involved in improving the article ? Also see my latest edits in the article and the discussion page of the Bates method article. Is algebra with a RFC a tool to decide which information should be listed and which not ? Is there a wikipedia article in wikipedia about a controversial subject which is succesfully maintained ? regards, Seeyou (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a proper use of the {{helpme}} function. I suggest you follow the dispute resolution process, or turn to the administrator's noticeboard (if you feel the problem requires admin attention). Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed your comment

Once again, you're using the article talk page to attack everyone that doesn't agree with you, so once again the inappropriate comments have been removed. [6] --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, that is your personal opinion. Lets ask someone really objective regarding this.
For the problems with your comment, see your past RfCU, WP:HARASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, and WP:NPA. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC censor is present again

According to ronz I said something wrong in the link above. Ronz is not very well in explaining. Do you agree with Ronz statement ? Seeyou (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seeyou&oldid=243262018"