HTML75
Welcome!
Hello, HTML75, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! jmcw (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Oom Yung Doe and Dr Sayigh
editI think that this change will generate some controversy, so I will start by explaining the rationale behind removing this statement. 1. There is no evidence to support the claim that the "dry herbal equipment" that Dr. Sayigh examined was in fact supplied by or taken from any Oom Yung Doe school. 2. I have corresponded with Dr. Sayigh about this incident and he stated that, "I regret getting involved the 1st time. I was not provided with complete information at that time and was informed later that the herbs were powdered. If I had known that I would have refused to even look at them since there is no way to positively identify powdered herbs visually." 3. There are in fact powdered herbs in all of the equipment sold by the Oom Yung Doe schools; however, this cannot be proven while sitting behind a computer. One must physically get up and go into a school and get some of the equipment. Once obtained, such equipment will have so much powdered herb in it that the herb will puff out into the air when the equipment is lightly struck. I have done this myself and encourage anyone who would refute this statement to try it themselves. So, while it is factually true that Dr. Sayigh was captured on video stating that there were only soybeans in the bags that he examined, that statement is not representative of actual OYD dry herbal equipment and therefore should not be included on this page.
- Here at wikipedia, personal knowledge cannot be used. You must supply a reliable third-party reference. jmcw (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have an email from Dr. Sayigh. How can I post it so that it can be used as a referece? HTML75 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- It would be better if Dr Sayigh published the information in a reliable journal or send it as a letter to a well-known newspaper. Emails as references have problems: see [1] and [2]. jmcw (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is why I don't use wikipedia as a personal resource. Anyone who is successful in getting something published, true or not, can then claim it as fact on wikipedia. Here is the full text of Dr. Sayigh's email to me, "I communicated with the Marketing Director and she confirmed what I suspected, that Bastyr is not willing to get involved in the dispute between the school and the disgruntled former members. I regret getting involved the 1st time. I was not provided with complete information at that time and was informed later that the herbs were powdered. If I had known that I would have refused to even look at them since there is no way to positively identify powdered herbs visually. I apologize for the difficulties that may have caused you. As I said on the phone, however, the issue between the school and the former members seems muddy enough that I am not willing to get involved again." So he will not be publishing anything that I can use as a reference. I am willing to compromise and only edit Dr. Sayigh's statement as opposed to fully removing it, but this is a prime example of the limitations of wikipedia as an information resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTML75 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I accept the new shortened, compromised version. jmcw (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I am glad we were able to compromise. HTML75 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- We try for the best possible while being guided by the rules. It is an art rather than a science. jmcw (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I am glad we were able to compromise. HTML75 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I accept the new shortened, compromised version. jmcw (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is why I don't use wikipedia as a personal resource. Anyone who is successful in getting something published, true or not, can then claim it as fact on wikipedia. Here is the full text of Dr. Sayigh's email to me, "I communicated with the Marketing Director and she confirmed what I suspected, that Bastyr is not willing to get involved in the dispute between the school and the disgruntled former members. I regret getting involved the 1st time. I was not provided with complete information at that time and was informed later that the herbs were powdered. If I had known that I would have refused to even look at them since there is no way to positively identify powdered herbs visually. I apologize for the difficulties that may have caused you. As I said on the phone, however, the issue between the school and the former members seems muddy enough that I am not willing to get involved again." So he will not be publishing anything that I can use as a reference. I am willing to compromise and only edit Dr. Sayigh's statement as opposed to fully removing it, but this is a prime example of the limitations of wikipedia as an information resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTML75 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- It would be better if Dr Sayigh published the information in a reliable journal or send it as a letter to a well-known newspaper. Emails as references have problems: see [1] and [2]. jmcw (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have an email from Dr. Sayigh. How can I post it so that it can be used as a referece? HTML75 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Your edits to my discussion page
editRemoving content from other people's talk pages are against Wikipedia policies except in the case of removing vandalism. Editor discussion pages are not the same as articles on Wikipedia, and such conduct can be seen as disruptive editing and vandalism. Was there a reason you deleted the question from Peter Yeung and my response, from my disucssion page? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I actually added an entirely new section at the bottom, which you seem to have removed. I didn't make any edits to Peter Yeung's qestion at all, or your response to him, and I don't see any references in the edit history of your talk page that suggest that I did. Granted, I am a new editor, so it's possible I made a mistake. But it seemed pretty easy to just start typing at the end of the existing posts so I'm 99% sure I didn't delete anything in order to add my text. HTML75 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and I'd like to reach a compromise with you on the part of the Oom Yung Doe article that I added to your talk page. Let me know if you'd like me to repost my comments.
- Thank you. HTML75 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)