Aspheric

Welcome!

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

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Editiorial vision

May you be able to make better progress than others: if you have had a backward look on the present and archived Talk:Alternative medicine you may have seen that this is one of the topics which have made attempts over a longish period to improve an article make wading in treacle seem like a walk in the park. Perhaps there are devices which can ascertain whether not a partial blindness of editiorial vision is, like a cataract, responsive to treatment. Qexigator (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind encouragment (or warning ?!). I'm probably in over my head but won't know till I start making proper edits. Seem to be stuck on the talk page at the moment.Aspheric (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to alt med are being discussed on my talk page

You're not the main topic of conversation but you might want to see this ...

Alt. med.

Asp: When you started having a go at rectifying Alt.med. I was (like others per their comments) hoping that it might bear good fruit. But it became the target of the IPs' attack. At Talk you say The current article is patronising to the reader and a poor treatment of an interesting topic but I fear it is worse than that, and the semi-protection will not be sufficient to let the article have any but palliative treatment. It has been addled long ago, and it seems irreversibly. Hence my proposal "Regain focus"[1]. I shall keep it on my watchlist just to see if by some Wikipedia magic a sow's ear can be turned into a silk purse (or not: Sow's ear effect), but I guess it more resembles the Curate's egg. Thank you for your work to date, and for bringing it to the notice of A&E department. And now I see another editor calls it a dog's dinner, and that there has arrived even a dispute about using a stipulative definition. Well, the fairground experience has set me thinking about the treacle down effect (nonsense variant of Trickle-down effect), and whether that could be best administered in 100x dilution. My dear old granny used to say "You have to laugh". (Of course remove this chatter if you don't wish to have it on your page here). Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL to your reply - had wondered where the phrase "don't knock it ..." came from: turns out it's medical latin. _PS to above....I had forgotten Alec Coppel's novel A Man About A Dog was screened as Obsession (1949 film). --Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes "... there's got to be a better way". Qexigator (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

--You may be able to help. I am looking for any proposal in the discussion which could now be usefully carried forward per "Lead: propose voluntary editing ban on lead for a month or two". Looking at "Which sources should and shouldn't be in the lead", much of that and what followed was from a disruptive IP now blocked, and much else was passing comment not positive proposal or inconclusive discussion about the sources in the lead. Except:

1_The linked article for homeopathy says "Dilution usually continues well past the point where none of the original substance remains". Put briefly, per that source: 'Homeopathy was developed prior to knowledge of the theory of molecules and basic chemistry, by which it has been proved that its remedies use dilutions well past the point where no molecule of the original substance remains.'...the wording of the sentence about homeopathy and dilution is scientifically inexact and needs some minor rewording per Ernst and other source mentioned above.. per Qexigator 10 and 11 January.

2_ Inconclusive discussion about "spiritual" under Please don't remove terms from sources - "Antiscience" or "supernatural".[2]

3_Inconclusive discussion about Ayurvedic medicine.

That is what I have found for carrying forward. If you see anything which should be added would you let me know or put it on the article Talk page? Qexigator (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Think you Bonnie O'Connor. Healing Traditions: Alternative Medicine and the Health Professions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995.[3] could be eligible as a source? 'O'Connor considers the conflicts that arise between the values and assumptions of Western, scientific medicine and those of unconventional health systems'. Qexigator (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

After deleting some and moving some, am now proposing more of that. I hope it's not impeding your source review. It was difficult to keep track when blocked IP was moving bits about. Qexigator (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

--Asp: WP:FRINGE is part of the treacly ingredients, but there are antidotes which can reduce excessive viscosity. We have to get to know how. The blocked IP failed the practical and viva, and it looks like another editor is going the same way. Meantime, keep watch, your help and comments to date have been helping progress. Qexigator (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference format

Greetings and thank you for your contributions to WP. I have proposed a format for references on Alternative medicine. I wanted to let you know and give you an opportunity to comment here. Good day! - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Cataract

Thanks for your comments and help. For a bit, 'cataract' seemed to be a lonely place. --Mdscottis (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to cataract. Kiatdd (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Cataract - use of laser

I wonder if I could ask you to review 'Use of laser". It seemed to be hanging in the wind and I've tried to explain it a bit, but also move it into its own section to improve the flow. Of course, since I don't know what I'm talking about, the exercise has left me feeling a bit insecure. Many thanks. --Mdscottis (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I adjusted radiation a bit. You know, I'm beginning to think this multi-author thing actually works! The article is becoming quite readable. Actually, a bit more than that. --Mdscottis (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Images size

If you read WP:IMAGE it will give you advice on sizing. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If one sets image size to default than readers with poor vision can set the size they wish to see to whatever they like under "preferences". If people have poor internet connections they may wish to see smaller images. If people have poor eyesight they may wish to see larger images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

More details here [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The Teahouse Turns One!

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

	Teahouse First Birthday Badge
	Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Alternative medicine → Complementary and alternative medicine

Request initiated for the article Alternative medicine to be moved to Complementary and alternative medicine. I'm notifying you as major contributor to the article. Relevant talk page discussion found here. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a stretch to call me a major contributor, particularly as being partly responsible for the mess on alt med is hardly a badge of honour but I've left a brief whinge as requested. Aspheric (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I notified anyone with about 30 edits or so to the main article. As to its present state well, we'll try to rectify (fruitlessly no doubt). FiachraByrne (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me, you're doing amazing work by making a frankly impossible task look almost manageable. Ever thought about getting a job at the UN or as cat herder ? Aspheric (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Asp. there is much still to be done to improve the article, but, thanks to your edits, it has been possible for others like Fiac. to make some progress (still ongoing). The treacle is not so viscous as it was. Qexigator (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Aspheric. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine ideas

Thank you for the update.

1. Find a revision before the socking attacks and link to that revisions. It can be used as a model to further correct the article. That's why each and every revision is saved.

2. I still think an FAQ is needed even if it's the only issue, because without it there is no summary of how the issue has progressed or what happened and an outsider will find it difficult to comprehend what's happening.

3. As emotive as it is (and I understand such things are difficult), I think it's better to provide some evidence and watch it "fail" because in the future a new generation can use that evidence and help improve the article. I've gone back and re-wrote articles that had been deleted in AFDs by providing new evidence and addressing the failures of those AFDs.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The Talk:Barack Obama article talk page uses Template:FAQ, specifically {{FAQ|quickedit=no}}

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Ocular Tonometry sanitation.

"not supported by mainstream ophthalmic literature or RCOphth guidance"

Uh huh? Royal College of Ophthalmologists Guidelines