User talk:Ilena/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ilena, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Fyslee 21:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Stephen Barrett, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. -- Fyslee 19:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please try to write in a measured, nuanced, encyclopedic and factual way. Excessive and tendentious edits might disturb the work of other editors and be reverted. You might find reading WP:POV useful in this respect. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, reinserting the same commentary multiple times may cause you to violate the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. -- Fyslee 20:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop using Wikipedia for personal attacks

It is a well-known fact that you hate certain people. Take it elsewhere, like Usenet. Wikipedia is not a place to carry on your attacks. -- Fyslee 22:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Final warnings

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Fyslee 18:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Ronz 15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Stephen Barrett. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. --Ronz 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 06:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

Even if you're not banned from the article, you're in danger of violating WP:3RR. Stop immediately. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett's propensity to change history will not be tolerated.'

I have added pertinent and relevant information, with appropriate links.

What the EFF says is FAR more relevant than one of Barrett's publicists.

Every word I wrote is accurate.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! --Ronz 21:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --Ronz 00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue spamming, as you did in Barrett v. Rosenthal, you will be blocked from editing. --Ronz 20:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Barrett v. Rosenthal, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. --Ronz 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Ronz 20:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The National Council Against Health Fraud

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to The National Council Against Health Fraud, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz 02:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I find an enormous amount of bias here for Barrett. It is NOT my point of view that NCAHF was suspended by the State of California, nor is it my point of view that NO ONE has shown any proof whatsoever that is a legal corporation capable of accepting donations that it solicits in Massachusetts.

When I first began reading here a few days ago, the FACTS regarding Barrett's case against me were absolutely falsely stated from their desired point of view.

I do not understand why you continue to protect the fact that NCAHF was suspended.

Ilena 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, just what do you think the suspension means? You keep including it as if you think it was something that passes Wikipedia's notability and trivia guidelines. (BTW, notice the sig is always placed at the end of the comment, not at the beginning. Just four tildes, nothing more, and nothing less.) -- Fyslee 23:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, it seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. --Ronz 01:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's NPOV rule by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to The National Council Against Health Fraud, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Ronz 19:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

December 12

• Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to National Council Against Health Fraud. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. StoptheDatabaseState 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Ronz 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, as you did at Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud, you will be blocked for disruption. --Ronz 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

December 14

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. [1]--Ronz 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. [2] --Ronz 18:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. [3] --Ronz 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett

Ilena: It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on Talk:Stephen Barrett. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. --Ronz 15:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. You advertise the loser, Barrett's website and remove pertinent websites around my winning side of this case.

Is there no one at Wikipedia to be encyclopedic and not make Wikipedia another Barrett bullied front group?

How can Ronz remove my sites and add Barrett's and call this "unbiased." Ilena

When will you ever try to be taken seriously here? Until you start learning and practicing the way things are done here, you're not going to get much sympathy or cooperation. Formatting your entries properly would be a good place to start. Do like others. Indent properly, sign properly. Signature goes at the end, with the time stamp. Just use four tildes, no more, no less, and don't violate the rules here by spamming each entry with your website, and stop attacking other editors. If you start behaving, even I will cooperate with you! I'll leave a standard welcoming message at the top. It has some good pointers. -- Fyslee 21:47, 10 December 2006 (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 may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Ronz 05:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Stephen Barrett. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. StoptheDatabaseState 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIG

Hello. 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. 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! Please also note that external links should not be included with your signature. --Ronz 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA again

Please read WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks. Your posts about me on your web site may be considered a negative factor in decisions as to whether your violations of WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, and WP:SPAM are serious enough to warrant blocks or bans. (I should point out that, if I were making such decisions, I'd keep your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia under advisement, even if that unfamiliarity is somewhat willfull. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on The National Council Against Health Fraud. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. StoptheDatabaseState 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to be little more gracious and helpful with new editors who are struggling with "obvious truth" & Wikipedia policies.--I'clast 11:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

taking advantage of

I've put in a restoration. Ilena, you might consider slowing your edits down a little, spend some time on the Wiki policy links they keep spitting out, so more experienced adversaries can't "set you up" for rules violations (and blocks), a favorite being the 3RR (reverts rule). It may seem twisty, as to to the difference between lots of edits and a reversion but very important in the middle of a catfight when several gang up on you. Besides, slower but persistent with a hard reference (extra time used) is probably more aggravating to any hotter heads...--I'clast 11:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining myself better. I would like to add that truth is irrelevant to Wikipedia; verifiability is the primary requirement. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that NCAHF not being registered in MA is verifiable; all we can be sure is that they're not registered as a MA corporation; that database doesn't seem to have foreign corporations registered to do business in MA. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I'clast. It is definitely verifiable that NCAHF is NOT registered in Massachusetts. The Secretary of State's office has reiterated that all legal corporate entities are listed in their database. Any legal corporation in any state can prove their legality in a heartbeat. Ilena 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena Rosenthal

There are a number of large corporations doing business in Massachusetts which I cannot find in the directory. This may be a defect in my search proceedures, but it does indicate the possiblility that NCAHF may be registered in another state. Also, non-profits do not necessarily have to register as a foreign corporation in all states in which they solicit donations, even states they are physically located in, but only in those states to which they direct donation requests. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the 990 form filed by NCAHF with the IRS for 2005. It specifies that they have also filed in California ... where their corporation was suspended in 2003. [4]

Ilena 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena

I've reposted several parts to talk:NCAHF; let's move discussions back there.--I'clast 18:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Communications with the Secretary of State and Attorney General of Massachusetts

I think it would be better for you to keep us updated on your communications with the Secretary of State and Attorney General of Massachusetts [5] here on your own talk page rather than on the Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud page. --Ronz 02:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of my being Stephen Barrett

Please stop accusing me of being Stephen Barrett. I consider this a personal attack on myself, especially when you make personal attacks against him at the same time.

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Ronz 17:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:You are not being attacked

I've copied the discussion below from my talk page, after moving your comments from my user page, in order to make for an easier discussion.[6] --Ronz 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not being attacked. Stop censoring my posts. You are hiding behind an alias and are attempting to expunge evidence about the NCAHF and other Barrett operations that you do not want the public to see. Your POV and bias is overwhelming and against the rules of Wikipedia. [7] Ilena 18:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Ilena

Sorry about removing the link. You're still promoting your webpage in violation of WP:SIG, so I've gotten used to cleaning up after you. That one should have stayed.

As for the rest of your comments, I'm not hiding behind anything, and I find your accusations uncivil, even offensive when repeated over and over as you do. I have removed no evidence, and I don't appreciate that accusation either. I suggest you read WP:POVPUSH before making any accusations about it. If I'm promoting a POV stop with the accusations and present some actual evidence.

Finally, you're constantly assuming bad faith on my part. I don't appreciate that either. --Ronz 19:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So, despite what you may say, yes you are attacking me. --Ronz 19:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment and question

Ilena, you seem to be having some difficulty fitting in with Wikipedia. Whether you realize it or not, we consider WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA important. Do you not understand these, not think you are violating them, or not care? I would appreciate a clarification of your position on these. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dec 18

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. [8] [9] --Ronz 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)