User talk:Seeyou

+This user likes getting friendly notices.

This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.

This user is a participant in
WikiProject
Alternative views.

This user is owned by one or more cats.

Seeyou (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello??? Care to explain your comment? Famousdog (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

{{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. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

{{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)

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)

RfC

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

{{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)

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. —P^urpleRA^IN 20:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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 :

• http://one.aao.org/CE/PracticeGuidelines/Therapy_Content.aspx?cid=d7238b2b-a59f-49f6-9f30-64d1e84efc3b

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)

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)

Have a look at WP:SOAP and WP:TALK.--PhilKnight (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Take a look at hhe current cabalcase.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-05-01_Bates_method

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)

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)

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)

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 :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=182792619&oldid=182773677

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.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bates_method/Archive_2#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)

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)

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)

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).

You are an optimist. Seeyou (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'd love to reply, but I swore to remain neutral during this mediation.  Atyndall93 | talk  14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This youtube must make clear what I mean by the mind is not equal to the brain. See the youtube video below. This woman ( whose proffession : brain scientist ) could not speak, write, listen, remember who she was and use her arm after a stroke. She recovered completely in 8 years. Question : Did her brain change her brain or did her mind change her brain ? And do you think is was easy ? NVI also is not about brain over mind it is mind over brain  !! In my opinion the statement : The mind is equal to the brain is very ignorant in a article titled Bates method / Natural vision improvement. Seeyou (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC) See : * http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

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)

I have replied to your discussion.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Also, could you please respond to the replies I posted in your discussion section.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

(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)

And in light of comments above, this is my current heading proposal.  Atyndall93 | talk  14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

How about this? Feel free to edit it and suggest improvements.  Atyndall93 | talk  00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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 :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-05-01_Bates_method

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bates_method

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)

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)

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)

Formal mediation then. Atyndall, Hereby I want to thank you for your efforts.Seeyou (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe you can also assist with the formal mediation ? Seeyou (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Atyndall it is Censor. So inacceptable ! Seeyou (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

{{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)

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)

WP:EAR might be useful as well. --Ronz (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand you Ronz I do understand what Nixeagle said. Seeyou (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Which question(s) ? All my questions are answered. Seeyou (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

{{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)

• The talk page isn't too big. I can't imagine why the latest edits didn't show up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I see why. Someone forgot to close an HTML tag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Please read WP:NPA and try to follow it. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

{{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)

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=236949150&oldid=236942285

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=236950659&oldid=236949150

See also the link below for further understanding.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-08-03_Bates_method

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=236176335&oldid=236175399

You should probably take your concerns to WP:ANI#User:Seeyou. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

I've started a discussion on your behavior here: WP:ANI#User:Seeyou --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you contact Elonka and Dpbsmith if they agree with you :-) Seeyou (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=237546921&oldid=237546762 Seeyou (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

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

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)

Tell them to respond to my e-mail. John Reaves 00:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. — ^.^ ^{[citation needed]} 08:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked. John Reaves 20:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

My advice : If you are so sure start a arbitration case. Seeyou (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What would you like explained? Your RfC/U? The relevant policies and guidelines? --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronz wake up I want an objectiver authority editor to look at your censor action above. Seeyou (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You accused me of not explaining well, but will not help me understand what you want explained. Sounds like you don't want an explanation at all, only an excuse to harass others while you search for someone that agrees with you. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronz I really like you. I just do not understand you very well. But that can be easily solved by asking a mediator to mediate. Any suggestions ? Seeyou (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronz just comment on the talkpage and provide your argumnets there. In my opinion you can't have any argument. So I am waiting for you on the talkpage RFC nr 3. Cheers, Seeyou (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• 22:38, 7 November 2008
• 17:22, 8 November 2008
• 11:19, 9 November 2008
• 20:40, 9 November 2008
• 18:19, 11 November 2008
• 18:54, 11 November 2008

--Ronz (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please respect consensus

Your latest bout of edit-warring ignores the consensus reached in the very RfC that you started. Please stop the edit-warring. You can be blocked or banned for continuing this type of behavior. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, decisions are based on arguments and facts not on the opinions of a group of people who agree with each other ! The removeal of the woods results is very clearly political and weak. Skeptics constantly remove pro information about the BM/ NVI. Advocates of the BM / NVI do not remove skeptical information. Very strange. Being skeptic involves also to have an open mind. Removing this info is weak. Arbitrattion or no arbitration your choice. Cheers, Seeyou (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronz it is arbitration. Normal discussion based on arguments is impossible with you. You have had multiple chances to react on the talkpage to give your arguments in RFC no 3. You have not given one single argument. Idem for the others, but they did not remove the woods results again and again. Seeyou (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not even sure what most of your comment above means. The first two sentences make no sense. Your fourth sentence, "You have not given one single argument" is simply incorrect. I've responded, repeatedly. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Which sentence in RFC no 3 makes no sense ? Seeyou (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to your comments above, but now that you mention it, your RfC is extremely confusing as well, as others have noted.

I'm requesting you be blocked for your continued disruptions. I'll update this with a link to the request after it's made. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very important other users comment on RFC no 3. It well explained and the argunents are very clear listed. Quite unigue discussions are presented so clearly. What is also very strong is that other users are invited to comment. And they did. Seeyou (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Block requested at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Seeyou --Ronz (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI archived: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#User_Seeyou --Ronz (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-05-01_Bates_method

Hello Seeyou, Just letting you know that I have reverted your recent edits to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-05-01_Bates_method as the case has been closed since June this year and is no longer being mediated or accepting more information. If you have new information you wish to show, I suggest taking other avenues such as RfC if you need more opinions. I also suggest that you discontinue your revert-war (if that is in fact what is happening) on Bates method and read up on the 3-revert rule, which, if you break, you can be blocked for. Thankyou. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Native language?

I've proposed finding someone to discuss the situation in your native tongue. Can you tell us what language that is? --Ronz (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

sknaht.Seeyou (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you misspelt the language's name? I cannot find any info on sknaht. Which, by the way, is thanks backwarks in English. Above you posted a youtube video from the nl.youtube.com site, which seems to be either for people who speak Dutch or people who live in the Netherlands. Is this presumption correct? Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No I am not Dutch I am studying dutch. Thankgod The youtube video is also available in other countries. Can you comment in the paragraph above the brain not equal to the mind ? Seeyou (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from commenting on the "brain not equal to the mind" paragraph. It would be helpful if you would explain what language you are most proficient in. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

What language are you most proficient in? --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

English with an accent. Why do you want to know ? Seeyou (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that there was a way around the problems communicating with you in English. Would you mind if someone tried Dutch? --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Which problem(s) in communicating ? We communicate very well Ronz. We just have not got the same point of view regarding improving articles. Can you be more specific in what yoo mean. For example a reference. Line paragraph etc. Seeyou (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't communicate well at all. It appears that you don't understand much of what others write when they try to communicate with you. Likewise, I don't recall a single instance where you've shown even basic understanding of the polices and guidelines relevant to your editing here. Further, much of what you write is unclear, bordering on unintelligible.

For example, in the discussion above User_talk:Seeyou#Please_respect_consensus, I wrote, "Sorry, but I'm not even sure what most of your comment above means. The first two sentences make no sense. Your fourth sentence, "You have not given one single argument" is simply incorrect. I've responded, repeatedly." I don't see the slightest hint of understanding from you of what I've written. Your ArbCom request indicates you don't understand, or are simply ignoring multiple comments by multiple people over the last week.

Another example: If you search the discussions above, you'll find many editors concerned that you don't understand WP:CIVIL. You've never responded to any of these comments.

So, I'm simply asking what language you are most proficient in, so we can at least minimize language problems. --Ronz (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronz stated above :

> You have not given one single argument" is simply incorrect. I've responded, repeatedly."

Seeyou : Responding with there is consensus for the removal is not responding Ronz, Since there is not provided a single argument for this removal. There are at this moment 10 valid arguments listed for mentioning the woods results. There is not even one mentioned for the removal.

Is this consensus ? No it is not ! Ronz, it is : We remove this information because it does not enforce our point of view. Which is : Vision can not improve naturally. Seeyou (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, I don't see any indication that you understand my words, the words of others, or Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unless we can find a better way to communicate, this is a waste of time. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is very strange Ronz other people can very easy make something clear to me when I do not understand something. And vice versa off course. Except the communication between me and you. I am wondering how on earth is this possible ? Can you explain why dit not give your arguments in the cabalcase below ?

• [[7]]

Cheers,Seeyou (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong, responding with there is consensus for removal is a argument, as Wikipedia operates on consensus. If you disagree, make your argument on the talk page of the article, and convince various others of why you are right in the matter. Once you have several others that agree with you, as in, the majority of users present, then you have consensus to add or remove the content. Otherwise, consensus is currently against you, and the fact that you do not have consensus to remove the comment is an argument, because as said, wikipedia operates on consensus.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: bates

Well, while I don't fully understand what is being argued here, it appears to me that the other side of this argument is probably correct in their claims that the article spends an undue amount of time on that subject, but I am not sure.Either way, as I see you have asked a fair amount of other people the same question you asked me, I will defer to their opinions. Thingg^⊕⊗ 15:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, Take a close look at [[8]] Without a similar RFC this link would not even be available. regards, Seeyou (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Posting repeated and/or biased requests to uninvolved (or involved) editors is canvassing and is explicitly disallowed. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant ? Without the RFC above. The link would have been removed forever ! Wikipedia is about improving articles in my opinion. The RFC above improved the article. Do you agree or do you not agree ? Seeyou (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou, have a look at WP:CANVASS - your message was biased, and so constitutes campaigning, which isn't allowed. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks For your useful comment Phil regards Seeyou (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, now, are you not going to go around canvassing in the future then? Do you understand why it is not allowed?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and respect other editors

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Re: "The BM/NVI is not abour science it is about politics. And so is your request for removal." [9] --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

On what ground do you think I do not respect others ? My statement above does not explain I do not respect others Ronz. Do you know there is a strong connection between how you see others and how see yourself ? Cheers, Seeyou (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting that the individual's request was political is not appropriate. You made the discussion personal, discussing an editor's motivations, when you should be concentrating on content and not making rude assumptions of others. --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz when people discuss they present their arguments. The bates method article is at this moment opinionbased. So it is a bit strange other editors are completly free to give their opinion and I can not present my very valid important opinion. If you are so certain I am wrong. I am sure you know how to act. Seeyou (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you further. If you continue to violate WP:AGF, WP:TALK, WP:NPA, WP:CON, etc. you will likely find your self blocked or banned. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For giving my opinion. Goodluck. cheers, Seeyou (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The article talk space is for discussing changes in the content, not for discussing whether an editor has a political agenda or not. For watching this talk page, I have seen you again, and again warned because of your uncivil behavior, this continues, I shall request a block. This is your final warning.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz and Daedalus, your comment was an assumption of bad faith, and in future, if you have concerns regarding an editor, it would be preferable to use the dispute resolution process. In the context of being notified about the pseudoscience ArbCom restrictions, if problems continue, you could be blocked, or banned from the article, including the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seeyou, judging by your talk page, you need some wikilove. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 01:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sunning bates method

I was just commenting on the article talk page when you wrote your note to me. I hope it addresses your concerns.

Additionally, please don't write that an editor's "argument is fake." [10] [11] --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz I changed my respons on the talkpage. I thought you removed bats quote also. Seeyou (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand WP:OR, or WP:V for that matter. I'm will not respond to your comments in the article talk page until you decide to follow the guidance above. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No original research policy

In this comment you seem to have misunderstood the no original research policy. The policy stipulates all content must be attributable to a reliable, published source, and that articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material. Obviously, the article on the Bates method isn't an exception, and your comments appear to be confused. Accordingly, I recomend you have another look at the policy. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Phil, Look at this edit by Ronz [[12]]. His comment for removal : rv to last by PSWG1920 - Original research. Not a valid argument since he removed Bates his own words after his book Perfect eyesigh without glasses. And facts about books being published today. There is no publisher today who takes the risk of presenting information about open eyelid sunning. A very good reason why wikiepdia should do the same. What is your opinion ?Seeyou (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That agrument is perfectly valid. WP:OR is a policy we have here, and your edit was a breach of that policy. Now, you have continuesly shown that you have a very bad understanding of policy here, and apparently you won't try to understand it. Yet again, instead of reading up on policy, you breach it, and comment on another editor. Since I already issued your final warning, I'm requesting a block. You need to spend some time learning the way things work around here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Removal 1 :

  Sunning : Let the sun shine on your closed eyelids for short intervals. Choose preferably the early morning sunlight. It is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. The sun loses some of its effect when it comes through glass.

• Removal 2 :- Modern books about the Bates method or natural vision improvement only speak about closed eyelid sunning or do not speak about sunning at all.

To Phil and Daedalus969,

About removal 1. The quote of Bates comes from Bates own Better eyesight magazine ! Republished by Notrth Atlantic Books. So these are Bates own words. So Ronz argument original research is unvalid !

About removal 2 : After Bates dead his book was republished. Open eyelid sunning was not mentioned anymore. Modern books idem nothing about open eyelid sunning. Simply a measerable fact. So Ronz argument origninal research argument again is not valid. Seeyou (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet again Ronz's argument is vaild, you have yet to cite a source, hence, it is original research. Saying that it comes from a magazine means nothing. You have to cite the magazine, and the issue number, and secondly, that is a single, self-published source, so it doesn't exactly meet our criterion regarding sources.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Daedalus, Bates statement has been mentioned for quite a while in the article. And has been accepted for quite a while, by quite some fellow editors. Tbe magazine is Better Eyesight Volume IX, No 2. If selfpublished sources do not matcch your criteria. Can you then explain the links below.

• Bates, William Horatio (1920). The Cure of Imperfect Sight by Treatment Without Glasses . Central Fixation Publishing Co.
• Better Eyesight magazine published by Bates (from 1919 to 1930)

Seeyou (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Disvcovered a interesting guideline

• [[13]]
• [[14]]
• [[15]] archive index Bates method article.

AN/I Notice

Hello, Seeyou. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your edits.. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN/I#User:Seeyou. Thank you. --— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am available to answer any question. Seeyou (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User Ronz and User PSWG1920

Can you take a look at the latest revert edits by the users above. What is your opinion about these edits ? Did they impoove the article or did they decrease the Quality of the aricle ? See the previous one [[16]] and the current article. The changes are the introduction ( which is how it has been for a long time, booktitle and magazinetitle are mentioned ) and a external link ( also fully accepted after consensus ). What is your opinion and what is your advice ?

Evidence for ban

Your recent edit [17], which you made without comment or an edit summary, appears to a revert of all the work done in the past two weeks to the lede section of the article.

Once again, you are canvassing for opinions as well [18], [19], [20]. --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just going to point out that the introduction in these two versions is exactly the same despite the work done on it in the intervening 20 days. Most likely a cut-and-paste job. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, Are you really telling the truth here. Conclusions are based on facts and arguments. They are not based on suggestions and opinions. I am convinced time will tell what is really going on here. Cheers, Seeyou (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What's really going on is that you are once again forum-shopping, despite having been explicitly told NOT to. I had to revert *three more* biased posts to uninvolved admins; you're really asking for a topic-ban here under the pseudoscience decision. Stop it or else a topic-ban will be guaranteed. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing is not the problem, Jeske. Take a close look at my edits. For example my latest edit in the Behavioral optometry. Is Ronz revert valid ? The given reference is a very reliable one. Is not it ? I am not canvassing I am revealing censor ! If this revertedit stays I am going to arbitration ! Seeyou (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, his revert was valid, as you changed a great deal of material, while also removing critics' opinions on the material without any discussion what-so-ever. Secondly, Canvassing is a problem here. You have been explicitly told not to do it, yet you went ahead and did it anyway. We have rules heres, and you chose to break them. It is disruptive and a blockable offense, which is of course why you were blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unvalid revert by Ronz

(canvassing removed by Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)}) Cheers, Seeyou (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop canvassing, Seeyou, or I will take you up to Arbitration enforcement. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

1 week block

I've blocked you for a week under the Pseudoscience ArbCom restrictions, because of various problems including disruptive editing and canvassing. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Disvcovered a interesting guideline

• [[21]] Controversial_articles
• [[22]] List of controversial issues
• [[23]] archive index Bates method article.
• [24] to be studied !
• [25]

Why don't you just add these links to your userpage, it might make them more accessible.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• [[26]] Neutral_point_of_view]]
• dan millman Dan Millman
• [[27]]
• [28] tags removal Ronz a simple RFC will reveal the tags are very essential for further improvement.

Ban under the Pseudoscience ArbCom restrictions from canvassing

Since your 1-week block, which was at least partially for canvassing, you appear to have started again. Consequently, under the Pseudoscience ArbCom restrictions, you are banned from making any edit that could perceived as canvassing for 1 year. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• [[29]]

Possibly unfree File:Hypermetropic emmetropic myopic eyeballs fig 4 page 11 PSWG.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Hypermetropic emmetropic myopic eyeballs fig 4 page 11 PSWG.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC) --MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:3 conditions of the eye.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:3 conditions of the eye.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

_________________________________ Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature ________________________

Image copyright problem with File:3 different eyeconditiors explained.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:3 different eyeconditiors explained.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tags in Bates method

Please explain the POV tags which you added to Bates method on the article's talk page. Such tags always require discussion from the editor that has added them. --Ronz (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, the first one is e.g. based on the missing of figure 4. Bates used this picture in his book to explain the problem of the shape of the eyeballs caused by the tension of the extraocular muscles. I also read pseudo-science. I have not read or found a reliable source labelling the BM as pseudoscience. Woods research. See clearly method noc clearly marked as unequal to the BM. Etc, etc. Seeyou (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

And the second label because it is not clear wether or not the Woods result are objective or subjective. And the article says they were subjective or not objective. So a clear lie is present. Seeyou (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in Talk:Bates method, we now have a definitive answer regarding Woods. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no,no The opinion of one person without providing any clear facts regarding woods is far from helpful. The document is however fun to read, thankyou PSWG1920. The best way to solve our disagrement regarding Woods is Sammy. He has a copy. I have done several attempts to purchase the document, no succes. In the past AED or famousdog, ( I can't remeber exactly ) attached a document to this BM article. The public will then also be able to verify. So I am hoping for Sammy. Seeyou (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but "the training had no effect on the myopia, but educated some patients to interpret retinal images more carefully" is a direct quote from Woods (unless Beach is fabricating) and the details SamuelTheGhost has already provided at Behavioral optometry are consistent with that being Woods' conclusion. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before. What a single persons says has no weight compared to what a instute says. If the 2 results in the woods results really were subjective. They wouldn't have been mentioned. Believe me whatever AAO says will be checked by multiple persons so it the the reference regarding woods and the woods report itself offcourse. Retracer also made it very clear labelling it as bias. Seeyou (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before. What a single persons says has no weight compared to what a instute says. If the 2 results in the woods results really were subjective. They wouldn't have been mentioned it as s result. Believe me whatever AAO says will be checked by multiple persons so it is the reference regarding woods and the woods report itself off course. Retracer also made it very clear labelling it as bias. Seeyou (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This just looks to be a continuation of your disruptions of the article. You've already been warned for this. Is it time to get you blocked from the article permanently finally? --Ronz (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You know me I am always open for discussion when it takes place. Seeyou (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, I have got a question concerning this quideline [30]. Should we follow this quideline or is it of no value ? Comment in the BM article. Seeyou (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Dispute tag.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dispute tag.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} can someone solve the reference problem in the [natural vision improvement article]Seeyou (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom remit

The ArbCom NEVER settles content issues; only behavioral ones. Alluding to sourcing will not help your case. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeske, Preventing the article to improve is behaviour ! Arbitration is the only option for this article to become normal and objective. Appreciate your help, but it did not help. Seeyou (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Baloney. What you're gathering evidence for is indicative of a content dispute, which ArbCom will not make decisions on; those are left to the community. All they will do is make calls on conduct disputes; i.e. misbehavior. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and WIkipedia:Arbitration's lede. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 08:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeyou, if you're concerned about Original Research as you perceive it, the Original Research noticeboard is probably your best bet. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is to complicated for this noticeboard I am afraid. We need clear statements by an authority to move on. Seeyou (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom does not handle content disputes, and never has. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 08:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's another idea: Citizendium. [31] They do not yet have an article on the Bates method or Natural Vision Improvement, and I saw a discussion about how Citizendium is a better place for editors who hold unconventional views. Their Homeopathy article would seem to be the model here. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Citizendium is a good fit for Seeyou due to his tendency towards belligerence towards anyone who even so much as starts a sentence of criticism towards him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not about me it is about improving the article on objective referenced gronds fot the public. Nothing more nothing less. Since this article is being edited by overskeptic editors this article will never get there without objective help from outside. But I really appreciate your help. Seeyou (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And the Arbitration Committee will not help you. From Wikipedia:Arbitration, and I quote, [The Arbitration Committee] will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), and users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions, as it will not do so. (Emphasis in original) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[32] also states :

Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process: it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed or there is very good cause to believe they will not help. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious, entrenched, or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking, where all other reasonable means have failed. And if arbitration is not the route. We will simply contact Jimbo [33].Seeyou (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, content dispute. Jimbo doesn't have the authority to enforce content decisions, either, unless such decisions are vital to protect the whole of Wikipedia (i.e. the strict guidelines for articles relating to pedophilia). This does not rise to that level whatsoever, and again, as Wikipedia:Arbitration says: [The Arbitration Committee] will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), and users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions, as it will not do so. If you file an ArbCom request or appeal to Jimbo, I have an ArbComm statement waiting in the wings that will work just as well on Jimbo's TP. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 04:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Implied COI

Seeyou, Remove my name (and the names of other editors) from the section of your talk page labelled "conflict of interest" IMMEDIATELY! How DARE you? That is f*cking disgusting behaviour! Stop trying to smear people who you don't agree with you! Famousdog (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section. If Seeyou continues to attack editors in this manner, I think WP:ANI would be the best next step. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not attacked anyone. Read and reread !!! Seeyou (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Seeyou and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Take a serious look at the discussionpage of the Bates method and Natural Vision Improvement article. I constantly provide references and clear data. The orther constantly provide only their opinion regarding the subjects. Again take a close look at the facts. Don't be impressed by the mumber of editors who suggest I am behaving wrong.

When you really read what I have mentioned on my userpage I have not said one wrong word. In faact I have not said anything regarding any user specific. If I have really ssid anything wrong make it very clear. For example by providing the reference. Seeyou (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please make a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Seeyou, not here. The arbitrators are awaiting your statement. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yo, Seeyou - You are aware that there is a page for evidence for the ArbCom case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou/Evidence, right? The Committee won't look at your evidence if you keep sequestering it on your user page. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeske I copied my Evidence. Seeyou (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Seeyou (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fringe therapies

Template:Fringe therapies has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)