User talk:Belteshazzar

Hello Belteshazzar! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

A lengthy welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDHT

It may help if you really do read this. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I thought my previous comment hadn't appeared, since your response was very similar to your previous one, and I thought it was the same one. Belteshazzar (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

That link is just to a section of the whole document. It isn't a particularly big section. Slightly further down the page is a section on how editors like me should deal with disruptive editors like you. Do please read WP:DDE as well. Thanks. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

"Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement." I've been trying to do that. For example, "ineffective" might be OK if it is qualified somewhat. Although overall I regret restarting that discussion, as this led to useful content being removed. Belteshazzar (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Content That should never have been there in the first place. Anyway, I’ve had enough of your nonsense. Do not expect to hear from me until you go up before the community at ANI for sanctions. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you think this would be a good addition to IDHT? That seems to be more or less what has happened here. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bates method, you may be blocked from editing. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 06:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I was simply applying WP:SYN as it seems to be understood. The source doesn't appear to mention Bates or his theory. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Regarding your recent edits, especially [1]: Please revert and work to get consensus. Otherwise I think it's very likely you're heading for a block or ban. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed a quote whose source no longer contains it, removed verbiage from a description of Bates' techniques, and edited out a section whose content was redundant or better fit elsewhere in the article. The physiological issues are covered in "Underlying concepts", sunlight exposure is covered in "Sunning", and the danger of neglecting conventional eye care is covered in "General criticisms"; all three are also mentioned in the intro. I did move two things to other sections, and if you think I removed something else that should have been kept, that can be reintegrated into the appropriate section.

Another point regarding the "Effectiveness" section: from the history, it appears its main purpose was to report on a study which was later removed.

If you're referring to the intro, I think my edits there were at least constructive. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please revert and get consensus on the talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You want to restore a quote which no longer has a source (and the WebMD article is apparently considered somewhat questionable anyway), and a redundant section which no longer has a purpose? After my explanation, I was honestly expecting an apology. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to restore the article to the last good version and work from there. I started this discussion to see if we can do so without you being blocked or banned in the process. Your cooperation is essential. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the "last good version"? Belteshazzar (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Anything that looks like it was WP:STABLE would do, if you think we might be better off reverting further. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We should not restore a redundant section which has no purpose. Belteshazzar (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you can't take a step back from your personal opinions and instead work cooperatively with others. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I can do that, but I don't see a mass revert as a positive step here, given the problems with the previous version. It's a simple fact that the Accommodation quote is not in the current WebMD article. It's a fact that the "Effectiveness" section had redundancy to the "Underlying Concepts", "Sunning", and "Avoidance of Conventional Treatment" sections, which are also summarized in the introduction. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I can do that How about now? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

And don't make assumptions about or misrepresentations of editors in edit-summaries.[2] All you're doing is projecting your own biases. That's what's going to get you banned or blocked if you can't reel it back. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what else I was supposed to assume, given your comments here. The edit summary explained the reason for going and digging up an old version of an article which now exists in a different form, as that might appear odd otherwise. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't assume. Don't focus on editors.

What version did you revert to? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't revert to any version per se. For one thing, no previous version contained the archived WebMD link, even though the quote came from the 2007 edition of that article. Also, I simply cannot see how restoring a redundant section would be good. In short, there was no (remotely recent) good version to revert to. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

My normal solution to a problem like this is to go back to where the disruption began, then restore the revision before that. I think it began here, so... -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 17:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Any mass revert would restore a fair amount of disjointedness, verbiage, and redundancy which has since been improved. Belteshazzar (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're not going to work with others in a cooperative manner, then a block or ban seems necessary. Please revert, and work cooperatively to create consensus. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I explained in talk why my edit was good. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

And you consider that to be working cooperatively with other editors to establish clear, policy-based consensus? Is that the best you can do? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, yes. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I'm afraid a block or ban is necessary. Articles under sanctions require much, much more. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be rather outrageous to block or ban someone for adding well-known proponents to a list of proponents. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You've now added another entry [3], with a misleading edit summary and without a reference. How do you think this is appropriate? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

So your response is to continue edit-warring [4]. I give up. Let's see if we can get you blocked or banned. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Liberman has a biographical article in Wikipedia, and from his own writings is clearly a strong proponent of the Bates method. I simply added him to the Infobox's list of proponents. I don't see the problem, other than my lack of an edit summary the first time. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (help!) 22:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Hipal removed all but one proponent from the Infobox for no clear reason. I tried to discuss this with him, but his explanation was very hard to understand, and he would not elucidate further. This edit, I thus feel, was perfectly valid. I then discovered that Jacob Liberman has a biographical article in Wikipedia, and thus added him also. Again, I believe that edit was valid, although I probably should have included an edit summary, a point which Hipal highlighted in his revert. I thus quickly re-added Liberman with an explanation. That edit was probably a mistake on my part, but I don't think Hipal has conducted himself well either. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block appeals which focus solely on the wrongdoings of other editors are unlikely to be successful. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

June 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing set out to illustrate a POINT (see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Edits_by_Belteshazzar). This is a last chance block. Upon your return, there will be the expectation for you to do better. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

user:Psychologist Guy and user:Alexbrn: You missed one, unless you think this edit was good. Belteshazzar (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, user:Psychologist Guy, you probably meant to say "180-degree turn". [5] [6]. 360 degrees gets you back to where you started. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Psychologist_Guy, Jmc, Alexbrn, Hob Gadling, ApLundell, Hipal, JzG, El C, Roxy_the_dog, SamuelTheGhost

I probably should have explained this earlier, but I'm not sure that anyone until now has actually accused me of promoting the Bates method. By and large, I wasn't. I was trying to make the article into something that might be taken seriously by a believer or someone on the fence. Imagine someone who thinks he has gotten improvement or knows someone who has, or is just convinced by success stories. If such a reader immediately sees "The Bates method is ineffective", he's going to think the article authors don't know what they're talking about. Such readers are also why the article should do its best to explain all the possible reasons for apparent improvement. Suppressing such reasons, or calling the method "ineffective" right at the top, probably helps Bates method promoters, because fewer people will take the article seriously.

I guess I really stepped out of line in my most recent edits, but in my defense I was not informed about the WP:POINT guideline until I was blocked, though I guess I could have found it by reading WP:DISRUPT from beginning to end. In regards to my previous block, I was not aware of idiosyncrasies surrounding the "alternative therapies" Infobox, and I have since requested that if possible the template note that even well-known proponents should not necessarily be listed therein. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If you read this, 82.206.29.66 (talk · contribs), I'm afraid you may have been right. I wanted to believe otherwise. Belteshazzar (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions from a blocked user

Ajeeshkumar4u, since you edited the Near-sightedness article most recently, perhaps you or someone who reads this could update the reference link for "Care of the Patient With Myopia"? Currently it is here. There is currently an archived link of a differently formatted version, but it seems best to have a current link when possible. Belteshazzar (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I see now that that same source is cited elsewhere in the article as "AOA Clinical Practice Guidelines – Myopia", with the current link. Belteshazzar (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, Ajeeshkumar4u, since you're an optometrist, the Bates method and perhaps vision therapy articles could use your attention. I see that you edited the pseudomyopia article, and I'm pretty sure that pseudomyopia is relevant to such methods, but there don't seem to be many sources for that. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing of this talk page while blocked

Belteshazzar, please restrict usage of this talk page to an unblock appeal only. Please do not attempt to edit by proxy. Thank you. El_C 17:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Bates method

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Bates method, you may be blocked from editing. [7][8] --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It was not mere personal analysis, as the source explicitly says that accounts of improvement may be related to pseudomyopia. The only issue is the specific connection to the Bates method. By the reasoning used to exclude it, other things in the article should probably be removed also, but whatever. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help!) 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • For anyone interested, the discussion is here, and I think it allowed me to succinctly spell out the issues. WP:MEDRS and WP:SYN are applied quite inconsistently in the current Bates method article. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You're at the brink once again. Please leave the article alone. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible future addition to WP:WTW

Words to watch: discredited, debunked, disproven, ineffective, pseudoscientific  ...

Even if reliable sources appear to clearly reject an idea, a statement in Wikipedia's voice that it is "discredited" may be presumptuous. Labeling a method or treatment as "ineffective" is likewise problematic, unless there is no possible way such a method could ever work under any circumstances. Even high quality sources may not have considered all possible mechanisms by which a method or treatment might work.

Belteshazzar (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This is intended only for possible future reference. If someday a Bates method-based approach is proven effective, or a valid source states that such an approach might work in some cases, that will raise general questions about labeling something as "ineffective" or "discredited". Belteshazzar (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

There's a discussion on my talk page about concerning topic banning you: User_talk:Hipal#Belteshazzar. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone reading this should understand that this was triggered by a comment I made here on my own talk page, which was intended only for possible future reference if something changes. Belteshazzar (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think your latest edit [9] pretty clearly shows why you need a block or ban. --Hipal (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully my new edit is better. In any event, "frequent criticism" is original thought as long as this is the only source for that argument. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what this means. I understood the objection to my previous edit, so I did something different. "frequent criticism" is currently original thought, and "which is seen as proof that it is not truly effective" is clear from the quote which follows. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please walk away from the article. I think you've outlasted everyone's welcome and patience. --Hipal (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)--

Just like these four users did? Belteshazzar (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears you are just testing how far you can go before being blocked. I think it's time. --Hipal (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I would concur. @El C: you posted a fairly stern warning before about recidivism. This account is basically back to its old habits. jps (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not so much back to old habits - continuous bad habits from the time they started editing. Looking over this Talk page, there are warnings or blocks involving the same page in March (when the editor joined), May, June, July, September, November and now December, and includes two blocks and an AN/I report that appears to have grown stale without resolution. And it still goes on. Such a pattern of single-article problematic editing and endless Talk page WP:IDHT invites a topic ban. Agricolae (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Had I known in March what I now know, "ineffective" likely would have been removed then, and most or all of this would have been avoided. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

All this would also have been avoided had you just accepted that consensus was opposed to your position. This is no longer about content. It is now about behavior. Looking at the discussion, it is clear you have poisoned the well to such an extent that you no longer have any chance of swaying consensus, yet you persist like Monty Python's Black Knight. It has long since passed the point of productive discussion: just drop it or you are likely to face editing restrictions. Agricolae (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It sounds as though this is going to WP:AE even if I do "drop it". Belteshazzar (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps. Sometimes a stated willingness to self-regulate can forestall administrative action (but only if you then live up to the promise). Your 10 months arguing over the Bates method being 'ineffective' has gone well beyond what is reasonable and needs to end, voluntarily or involuntarily. The former is a better indication that you wish to participate on Wikipedia collaboratively, in this case your willingness to accept and respect that consensus will sometimes go against you.

Given the track record, you really should be editing the Bates method page with heightened deference already - either leaving it alone entirely or if you still think you have worthwhile points, raising them on Talk first and only once, abandoning them if they are reverted or resisted on Talk rather than pursuing them further. Restricting yourself in this manner may seem unfair, but having received two blocks and an AN/I report for the same page in your 10 short months here, it is the position in which you have placed yourself and you will have to earn back good will by productive contribution rather than incessant bickering. Agricolae (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement notice

Please see [10]. Thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Perpetual learning

I post here because it's not really relevant to the AE thread. I suspect this also meant scientific progress: Mainly due to what is known about perceptual learning, I think there is a non-negligible chance that the Bates method will become less fringe in the future. Science and medicine indeed improved a lot (and Bates 1860–1931 seems like a long time already, it's less and less likely that objective evidence for its efficacy will suddenly surface) and there is no reason to believe that medicine will stagnate soon. But if it's the case, the important would be finding WP:MEDRS quality reviews that confirm the method's effectiveness, another factor would be that its use would also become more common and recommended in reputable ophthalmology, internationally. Unless that happens it will still remain alternative medicine, of course (a definition that says a lot). WP also has a science reference desk, in case it would be useful. If a topic ban is applied, it would also become off-limits to discuss ophthalmology or Bates, though, unfortunately... —PaleoNeonate – 13:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

topic ban from Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)