This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 8
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Obvious POV pushing is much easier to deal with than the subtle forms, and is much easier when it is obviously wrong. -- Fyslee / talk00:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is often the case. We do need editors who are believers in alternative medicine and fringe subjects, but without the religious zeal. We need them because they know these subjects well and can tell the story from that POV. As long as they use V & RS and don't soapbox, they can include a good explanation in the articles. The problem is that it is this religous zeal and refusal to edit NPOV that gets them in trouble. Editors like Dematt, who understands NPOV quite well, are few and far between because too many fringe editors have a tendency to see Wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy. Plenty of other editors of all persuasions have that tendency when they are newbies (I dare say it's rather normal....;-), but many learn quickly and stop violating policies and attempting to misuse it to insert unsourced OR and fight personal agendas that are not shared by V & RS. Not all make it that far and are blocked quickly, while some are downright insidious and sneaky in their disruptiveness and have long careers here that waste enormous amounts of time and keep us from actual editing. The polite ones are the most dangerous, because they use fake politeness to play on being civil while engaging in subtle POV pushing, talk page disruption, and refusal to abide by a consensus that goes against them. They manifest this by politely and endlessly continuing to debate a subject and repeating the same old arguments that have been shot down repeatedly by many editors and admins, and they hope to tire everyone out and in an unguarded moment sneak their edits into the articles in some modified form. Even solid editors and admins like Tim Vickers and MastCell fall for that and compromise, instead of pressing the idiots up against the wall and then blocking them when they crack and reveal their true agenda. The present "peer-reviewed" nonsense is a perfect example of such an editor who refuses to abide by a good consensus against him and his little group of yay-sayers who will also get blocked soon. No need to AGF with any of them, just keep cool and don't get provoked. Tendentious and disruptive editors of this type are the death of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk05:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You're a little tough on Tim and MastCell. There is an NPOV for these bogus articles, but only from a historical sense. But you have got to love this quote: In other words, the reinforcement delivered (improvement of symptoms) is probably not random, because homeopathy users are more likely to take their remedies when they are feeling the worst, a condition which almost inevitably moves back towards the mean, leading to the impression that homeopathy improved the patient's symptoms. That's why there are zealous believers in this crap. They resort to a treatment for a bad condition, which inevitably improves, and the patient attributes it to the CAM bogosity. But, once you try to repeat that result with a true scientific study, there is failure. The religious zeal of these people is remarkably like what we see with Creationists. Ignore science because it does not fit your world view. This does take energy to fight. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions07:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Would you explain what CAM is, a link, if available, would be nice? I was asked on my talk page about this and I haven't a clue what it is. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk13:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll answer, since maybe Fyslee is skiing a fjord somewhere. CAM is Complementary and alternative medicine. It's the whole group of non-scientific practices that claim to be medicine, such as homeopathy, herbalism, accupuncture, etc.. There is a quote, and I might not have it quite right, but there is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is medicine that has been rigorously tested for safety and efficacy, and there are potentially useful therapies out there that have yet to be tested or have been and failed to prove any usefulness. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Well after reading through all of this I came across this too [1] I see that you all have been marked as 'special'. I don't know how you or anyone handles such hostilities like this. This article seems like a rewrite of articles already in use but with a twist. I'm surprise it hasn't been speedy deleted by now. Good luck on the attempt of balance you are trying. --CrohnieGalTalk14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I will save some time by simply including a section from the CAM talk page:
Clarification please
N.B.: (These questions are just for John. Give him a good chance to answer the questions before entering this discussion. Please respect this.)
Hi John. I'd like to "pick your brain," so to speak, and get a better understanding of what you mean in this edit summary:
To start this off, let me state where I'm "coming from" on this particular matter. Since all CAM methods are alternative medicine methods and techniques (and nothing else), how can CAM and alternative medicine be "completely different" topics? Of course it's a given to those who really know this subject (as we both do extremely well), that CAM includes only a few alternative medicine methods, not all of them, but still nothing other than them.
Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is an umbrella term for the two manners in which alternative medicine methods are most commonly used:
1. Alternative medicine methods used "Complementary" to mainstream methods:
(a) in combination with them;
(b) in cooperation with them;
(c) by agreement with an (normally) MD, or the MD themselves using them;
(d) often legally because an MD is allowed to practice experimental medicine, although the MD can still be prosecuted for fraud, malpractice, and practicing substandard medicine.
(e) This is the "Collaboration model."
2. Alternative medicine methods used as "Alternatives" to mainstream methods:
(a) instead of them;
(b) often in opposition to them;
(c) often opposed by MDs;
(d) often illegally because of violations of "unlicensed practice of medicine" laws, consumer protection laws, and marketing laws.
(e) This is the "Competition model."
Now what do you think of all this? I have noticed that you have repeatedly claimed that there was a difference and I have been quite puzzled about why you do this.
Please answer these two questions:
A. How can they be "completely different" topics?
(We are talking about precisely the same methods, and the only difference is the setting (a through e).)
B. What is your strategy?
(There must be a reason for your repeated insistence on trying to separate the inseparable, which you claim are "completely different" topics.)
I, of course, have already specified above in great detail everything that you are asking for. Yet, I see yet again an absolute total failue to point out one thing that is specifically wrong with this article. -- John Gohde (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't ask two questions if I saw such answers, or was satisfied with them. I have seen alot of repetition of the claim that they are different, but seen no evidence for the claim, and repetition doesn't make the claim true. Please answer both of the questions. You are welcome to copy and paste from above the things you believe apply as previous answers or information. Maybe I missed something. -- Fyslee / talk15:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I entered this discussion long before this entire section of personal attacks was written. My arguments are given above. It is a simple matter of reading the written word above. It is currently section #13.1 which is located between the solid, thick, horizontal bars. -- John Gohde (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not addressing anything else in this article. I am addressing a statement you have made and I want answers to two questions. It's as simple as that. BTW, there is nothing that can even remotely be construed as a personal attack in this section. Please answer the questions. -- Fyslee / talk23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The quotes OrangeMarlin is referring to above are covered here:
"Alternative has two possible meanings. Correctly employed, it refers to methods that have equal value for a particular purpose. (An example would be two antibiotics capable of killing a particular organism.) When applied to unproven methods, however, the term can be misleading because methods that are unsafe or ineffective are not reasonable alternatives to proven treatment. To emphasize this fact, we place the word "alternative" in quotation marks throughout this book whenever it is applied to methods that are not based on established scientific knowledge." - Stephen Barrett, MD [2]
"There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is 'Eastern' or 'Western,' is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest. As believers in science and evidence, we must focus on fundamental issues-namely, the patient, the target disease or condition, the proposed or practiced treatment, and the need for convincing data on safety and therapeutic efficacy." - Fontanarosa P.B., and Lundberg G.D. "Alternative medicine meets science" JAMA. 1998; 280: 1618-1619.[1]
"There cannot be two kinds of medicine - conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted." - Angell M, Kassirer JP, "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies." N Engl J Med 1998;339:839.[2]
What is considered alternative changes over time. If and when an approach, initially regarded as "unproven", is proven to be safe and effective, it will be adopted into conventional health care and over time may cease to be considered "alternative".[3]
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In case you weren't watching the page, orthomolecular psychiatry is getting a lot of attention from a relative noob. I don't have the expertise to fix mistakes, cull POV sources and all the other stuff that needs to be done. Interested? WLU (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly a newbie. I won't get near that editor. It's not worth the grief. Although one of my best friends here in Denmark is a nephew of one of the founders of orthomolecular psychiatry (Dr. Reiter), the subject doesn't interest me that much. On another subject, you may want to take a look at my latest edit at Jim Butler's talk page. -- Fyslee / talk20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
So much for the lazy way out... I'll try to deal with it as best I can.
Regards acupuncture, I'm pretty much staying out of any disputes on that score after the Chronic fatigue syndrome fiasco. Is it just me or is the alternative health crowd and their opponents starting to get more aggressive and disputes more acrimonious? What a mess, makes me want to restrict myself to nuclear physics edits. If only I knew anything about it. WLU (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Yes I was warned. So how do you deal with this. As you remember we had a discussion going on on the talk page about AK. How does this get posted against consensus. Anthon01 (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
On the List of Psuedoscience article we were discussing the "AK" edit. There was no agreement on the extra text. Now that extra text has been added. Anthon01 (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it, an extremely well-sourced addition, was removed by editors who wished to protect AK and chiropractic from mention on the page. While the text there shouldn't get too long (the actual article is the place to do that), the sources that were added were necessary to justify inclusion on the list. A neutral description that didn't document it as being considered pseudoscientific would not meet inclusion criteria. The documentation requirement is now fulfilled. The latest addition you made is more appropriate for the article and adds nothing related to documenting why it is included on the page. In fact that quote, while accurate, really says nothing special, because it can be said about anything, including voodoo. It appears to be added to try to give AK more support than deserved by an appeal to popularity. It is used by exceptionally few other (than chiropractors) professionals, and some of them have been successfully prosecuted for the tragedies their patients have suffered because of using substandard medicine (AK). -- Fyslee / talk15:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your e-mail about a user supposedly violating his probation was not specific enough for me to take any action. If you feel action is necessary, please post to WP:ANI a brief and clear summary of the objectionable edits (with diffs), links to the rule or policy that you think they are in violation of, and the action that you think should be taken. Sandstein (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Blood Electrification
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You said "IF blood electrification really worked it would have been patented and put in use a long time ago by the pharmaceutical industry, but since it doesn't, they can't." How is it patentable? Curious to know your thoughts. Anthon01 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
How on earth did I miss this on my own talk page? Weird! The answer would probably be that the equipment would be professionally made and patented, its use would be licensed only to physicians and/or technicians, and the necessary procedures would become the subjects of seminars and congresses, all a very profitable venture for thousands of people and employing many more. Believe me, it wouldn't go unnoticed and whoever actually proved it worked would become very famous.
No conspiracy would succeed for at least three reasons:
1. that's not how the medical system works in any way, shape, or form, since cures and discoveries are coveted and encouraged, regardless of their consequences for previous beliefs or procedures;
2. it would be impossible to keep secret;
3. medical personnel and their families get sick and would want to use it if it were truly a good thing.
Thanks for the response. The part that generated my question was "patented and put in use a long time ago by the pharmaceutical industry." If I understand you correctly, the patent would not necessarily be held by the Pharma industry. Anthon01 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point and very true. Often this kind of thing in one way or another does get tied in with the industry simply because they have so much money and technology, but of course that isn't always the case. -- Fyslee / talk20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
News & Notes - Could Zinfandel become the project's first Featured article? Great opportunities for wine related illustrations, a new 1855-Bordeaux template, Did you knows and MORE!
Wiki-Winos - User:Jmjanssen and the mysterious Woop Woop
Wine articles on the Web - Find out how our Port wine, Chardonnay, Retsina & other wine articles have been referenced on the web and what do outside folks think about the overall quality of our wine articles?
This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.
Happy holidays!
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I hope the holidays are fun and enjoyable. I would like to take this time to thank you for all the help you have given me over the time I have been here. I wish you and your a very happy & healthy holiday. 2008 is around the corner and my hopes is that it brings a great year of happiness to you. Happy, Healthy Holiday! Happy editing, I'm sure I see you around.. --CrohnieGalTalk17:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi - I saw your AN/I report about this - looks like a COI link. I Google search on ("Fu Xi Wen" +open +source) based on the description of the link added to the glossary shows this website: http://www.fuxiwen.com - the name of the owner of the website is Ethan Borg, like the user name Esborg (talk·contribs). The website strangely requires a legal agreement be accepted before viewing any of the additional pages so I stopped there. Per the user's talk page, Fu Xi Wen was speedy deleted in September. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. So much for my AGF! Ha! Would you please post the above to the ANI section? -- Fyslee / talk06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It is also interesting to note that it involves the same person and problems as in the very first RFArb at Wikipedia, which was raised by Jimbo Wales himself against John. -- Fyslee / talk15:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Question on talk page format
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a guidline as to how talk page comments should flow. It seems like the talk pages are getting more and more difficult to follow because of comments being inserted every which way instead of following downward. Any suggestions on what works best? Anthon01 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular talk page or comment(s) you are thinking of? Just provide the links and I'll look at it. In general new sections are always added at the bottom, unless they are new subsections to existing sections. New comments get added where they are relevant, and indenting should make it easy to see that they are new comments. There aren't many absolutes and one just needs to try and use common sense to avoid confusing others. Got some examples for me?-- Fyslee / talk18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A history of the Dawkins quote and merges
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
15:21, June 24, 2004, MNH moved or copied an alternative medicine article to the Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) article, which was in its early stages. There had been agreement on a merge with the Alternative medicine article right from the beginning, but edit warring over redirecting to the Alternative medicine article, other articles, or a category, with MNH favorable to a merge, in contrast to his position now, where he has been fighting for having three unmerged articles and no redirects.
The history of the merge of all three articles into one Alternative medicine article is found on this version of the talk page, especially these sections:
Unsigned comments by a supposed editor of a peer-reviewed medical journal. The comments are exactly the same wording as John Gohde has used many times.
There was obvious agreement to merge the related articles into the Alternative medicine article.
Originally MNH argued for merging the related articles into the Alternative medicine article: [3]
"Integrative, Alternative and Complementary Medicine all basically come under the same heading of Alternative medicine. Why not just improve the alternative medicine article?"--Mr-Natural-Health 13:13, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC) [4]
The first few sections in Archive 1 are very interesting regarding his thinking and demanding, even back then.
Later John Gohde was influential in supporting the removal of the redirect on the CAM article and reestablishing the article, and now we have three overlapping articles with lots of confusion.
His original comment "Integrative, Alternative and Complementary Medicine all basically come under the same heading of Alternative medicine. Why not just improve the alternative medicine article?" is exactly my sentiments as a solution to fixing the morass we are in. -- Fyslee / talk07:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Fys, I explained in the talk page why I reject your recent edit in toto. Do let me know if you disagree, so that we can find a mutually agreeable solution. Cheers.--Alterrabe (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would you be so kind enough to show me where to find the refactoring you mention On the ARB John Gohde 2 evidence page? Much appreciated as I am trying to keep up as an outsider to all of this, which has become quite confuseing to say the least, and put a comment together. --CrohnieGalTalk15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
CAM RfC
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If you believe that it should remain active then I will support that. I think the RfC's summary is inaccurate and should be rephrased. I don't think we are arguing about whether the tx are the same. I left a note on the CAM tp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I have been traveling and haven't always been in touch with a PC. I have now added some comments. -- Fyslee / talk05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
News & Notes - Portal:Wine up for Featured Portal status, WANTED-GA Coordinator/liaison and wine region maps, and can you guess which wine-related article was viewed over 85,000 times in December?
Wiki-Winos - Amatulić and his joke that may make you think twice about accepting an unknown glass of wine from a stranger
Wine articles on the Web - Did the Shiraz grape originate in Iran? Where did the Ah-so bottle opener get its name? What is up with that petroleum smell in some Riesling wines? And what the heck is Domaine de la Romanée-Conti doing planting Pinot noirfin? These are the questions that people out on the web are asking. Find out what answers they get when they turn to our Wikipedia wine articles.
This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Levine2112 really hit the nail on the head here:
The point is that we can all present both (or more) sides of this topic if we resolve to use reliable sources and work together with civility. Wikipedia is not a scientific resource. It is an information resource. It is not a collection of facts. It is a collection of verifiable information. This means that there is room to present all notable POVs which are documented by a WP:RS, no matter how grotesque or absurd or offensive you and anyone else deems them to be. I know it can be frustrating, but please consider WP:NPOV. It will help. -- Levine2112discuss20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[5]
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
(Just copying this here for my own reference.)
We need a decent lead for this article. I have a rule of thumb that ensures proper coverage in the WP:LEAD:
If a topic deserves a heading, then it deserves short mention in the lead.
Here is a table we can use to help in creating and managing the lead. Just add the headings and create short summaries of the entire contents of the sections. The final result is created by placing all that content in one big paragraph in the order it is found in the table. Then make appropriate paragraphs out of it, and make appropriate changes so it flows as brilliant prose. Have fun! -- Fyslee/talk19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Habitat
bla bla bla
Anatomy
bla bla bla
Population
bla bla bla
Reindeer and humans
bla bla bla
Subspecies
bla bla bla
Reindeer in fiction
bla bla bla
Miscellaneous
bla bla bla
Each item should contain no more than one or two sentences that sum up the basic idea of each section in the article that has a heading. The whole thing can then be lumped together and divided up into two to four paragraphs.
There should not be anything in the lead that doesn't refer to specific content in the article. There should not be any elaboration or detail in the lead. Elaboration should be in the body of the article, not in the lead. Sum each section up in two to four sentences, and use them in the lead.
Keeping references out of the lead makes the lead easier to read. The explanatory and more detailed text with the refs are found in the article. I don't know of any policy or guideline regarding including refs in the lead, one way or the other, so it's a matter of taste....;-) Since refs are used to document specific content, and since the lead is a short summation in a generalized format, I would see the use of refs in the lead as a duplication of effort. If there are any refs in the lead, they should be kept to a minimum. If a ref is required in the lead, then that might be a symptom that something is being introduced there that is not in the body, which would be improper.
Because articles change and grow, the lead should reflect those changes and be revised accordingly.
Otherwise I think the lead should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article. When they read the article they should not encounter any significant information that was not alluded to in the lead, IOW they should not be totally surprised. If they are then it should be mentioned in the lead.
Wikipedia articles should cover all notable aspects of a subject. When our readers have read an article and then talk to others about the subject, they should be able to always answer "Of course, I already read about that at Wikipedia." They should at least have a basic knowledge of all aspects of a subject, enough to discuss it and not be totally surprised by what someone else tells them. -- Fyslee/talk19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
CAM2
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Can you provide me with the diff, so I can see exactly which one of your comments is the relevant one? BTW, thanks for the heads up. -- Fyslee / talk02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
The continued use of the term "adjustment" implies the existence of (non-existent) chiropractic subluxations. The continued use of the title "DC" or "chiropractor" implies the manipulation of the spine to "correct a subluxation".
"Those who would allege that there IS something uniquely chiropractic must necessarily fall back on the "subluxation" theory of disease. In this regard, finding and removing these enigmatic entities is truly the only thing that the chiropractic camp can claim as its own. Even the term "adjustment" comes out of the subluxation idea. It is not simply synonym for manipulation, but carries the implication of subluxation.
"This idea is the only claim of uniqueness that chiropractic has. In fact, I've heard leaders of the ICA (Sid William's gang)say that if chiropractic loses the subluxation, it ceases to exist." - Bill Latanze, DC
"Crelin showed that one of the bedrock principles of chiropractic - the hypothesis that the vertebral pinching of spinal nerves impairs nerve functioning - is almost certainly invalid. Chiro-practic without this principle is analogous to meridianless acu-puncture." - Craig F. Nelson, DC
Craig Nelson could not have chosen a better analogy. Acupuncture "points", "meridians", and "chiropractic subluxations" have this in common: they do not exist as physical, biological entities, but are metaphysical beliefs. Their existence has never been proven. They are fantasies.
Acupuncture without the philosophy is needling. Manipulation without the philosophy isn't adjustment. Chiropractic without subluxations isn't chiropractic. -- Fyslee / talk03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This is completely absurd. Maybe this is the case in the United States, however your northern neighbour makes no such claims. The Philosophy of Chiropractic far exceeds a modality (manual/mechanical manipulation) and a lesion (vertebral subluxation/joint dyskinesis). It is about a holistic approach to health care using natural therapies primarily (joint manipulation, soft tissue manipulation exercise, nutritional counseling, medical acupuncturestress management, health promotion, ergonomic consulting, etc. To insinuate that the existence of the profession depends on subluxations is a dated, narrowed view of Contemporary Chiropractic.
Also, anyone who knows a lick of neurology realizes that there neurophysiological effects of manipulation and, similarly, there are neurophysiological effects of joint dyskinesis/subluxation. However, these are being taken in a neuromusculoskeletal context now as well as possible autonomic implications on visceral functions that may arise from chronic NMS pain syndromes. This is a contemporary view of the profession.
The title DC or chiropractor certainly does not imply manipulation for subluxation. Again, a narrowed view focus. Rather we are holistic NMS doctors with an emphasis on manual therapies and other complementary therapies. We;re not wannabe MDs or "glorified PTs". DCs trained in scientific schools are perfectly positioned to play a crucial role in managing and preventing NMS issues and PCP role.
I would encourage you, Fyslee, to visit the CCA website or the new OCA one and you tell me that my sole purpose is to rid subluxations. It is, at least in Canada, a dying faction as CMCC and UQTR embrance scientific chiropractic and not traditional/philosophical (straight) chiropractic.
It is always important to have different perspectives on issues to remain objective. I am not an evangelist (as a good analogy to the straights/subluxation based) and definitely have my criticisms with my profession, but it's mainly a generational thing. The evidence-based Doctor of Chiropractic in 2008 is not tied down to the philosophy of subluxations (metaphysically) or at least in Canada (my POV which conflicts with your chiropractic POV which is US and not a world wide one.
In fact, every DC since 2002 has been educated in the integrative EBM curriculum (CMCC is 45 minutes away from McMaster University, where evidence based medicine was born) Canada, unlike the US has NO subluxation based schools and they are both university degree granting institutions. This is important because credits obtained at CMCC and UQTR can be TRANSFERRED to public universities unlike before.
In the end, Fyslee, you will begin to appreciate the sophistication of contemporary chiropractors. Most of us have 4 year undergrad degrees in kinesiology of the life sciences and obtain various other treatment modalities (soft tissue such as ART/Graston/SASTM, get diplomas in Medical Acupuncture from McMaster University by the Department of Anaesthesia from MDs who designed the course from a anatomy/neurophysiological POV, obtained CSCS designations from the NSCA (http://www.nsca-cc.org/) etc.
Believe me, I understand that there is a difference between many Canadian chiros (a small minority in the profession), and the large majority of other chiros, especially in the USA. That's quite positive. After all, it was Ron Carter, the Past President of the Canadian Chiropractic Association who basically wrote that belief in the so-called "killer subluxation" was actually what was killing the profession, not killing the patient. He described it as the "Achilles Heel of our profession." Very insightful and surprising, considering it was coming from a leader. To my knowledge no such statement has come from American top leaders. Even the schools still officially hold to a subluxation paradigm. So things are indeed different between Canada and the USA, but there are still many (if not a majority) of Canadian chiros who believe in subluxations. It takes time to change these things.
BTW, it may seem easy to assert that Canadian chiropractic and education is different and much better. While that is partially true, realities don't paint such a clear picture. An example is the quack Activator device. The Chiropractic Association of Saskatchewan once did a positive thing and forbad its use there, but that has since been rescinded, IOW a step backwards. That's unfortunate, so you've got some work to do, so don't give up!
Notice that above I am quoting chiropractors. I get pretty much all my information from chiropractic sources. You should buy the latest edition of Skeptical Inquirer, which has two articles on chiropractic and one on homeopathy. I think you might find them interesting.
I know and respect a number of chiropractors who are skilled clinicians who help many people. My objections are to the foundational beliefs of the profession, which are out of sync with the beliefs with a growing number of the younger generation of the profession. I'm well aware that there are educational improvements being made, and that's a good thing. BTW I am not very active on these matters any more, don't participate in discussion groups, don't maintain my website, etc.. They just sit there collecting dust. -- Fyslee / talk17:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If needling has the same effects as acupuncture, do we call it acupuncture, or do we call it needling with metaphysical results? ;-) ---- Dēmatt(chat)01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good question...;-)! Since acupuncture is a healing system consisting of techniques, a philosophy, and an understanding of anatomy that doesn't jibe with reality, any totally proven physiological effects of sticking needles into people would have to be reexplained in terms of real anatomy, without resorting to explaining it in terms of the four elements, meridians, and acupuncture points. If something really is going on, and some research seems to indicate that occasionally, maybe, something is going on (but not quite sure what), it should be possible to document it in a manner so convincing that most mainstream scientists will accept it. We haven't gotten there yet. I am leaving the door open, since there obviously is some type of influence on tissues and nerves that can happen, and therefore the possibility is open for results, hopefully some of which will be positive and useful, but not necessarily. The question of exactly "why" it happens is another matter. Use can be justified, based solely on proven efficacy and a positive risk/benefit ratio. With time the true explanations of why it works will come. That's the way it has often been with other therapies.
But as far as acupuncture goes, with its philosophy, unreal anatomy, and metaphysical ideas, we can toss them out the window with impunity, and without blinking an eye. It would have to take extremely strong evidence to convince scientists that meridians and acupuncture points exist as physical entities. It just hasn't happened yet, and histology is a rather advanced science. In the meantime we can perform research using needles and see what happens. That is happening, but so far without any exciting results that I know of. Nothing earth shaking is going on. It's sort of like the claims made for life after death and ghosts. They claim that a spirit can shake a table, make it cold in a room, make noises, make what might somehow appear to be a shadowlike face appear in a photograph of a lampshade, etc., but nothing of worth is really being told, done, or experienced. More gets accomplished by ignoring it and using real science to move forward in other areas.
I think it has some forms of health benefits, especially as stress relief, which in turn has other beneficial effects. Meditation has many forms, from thinking about nothing, to thinking about nonsense, to concentrating on certain themes that produce solutions to problems. I can imagine that different forms of meditation can produce different results. -- Fyslee / talk04:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The National Council Against Health Fraud
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Fyslee,
Realizing it's probably a contentious page, would I be stepping on toes by a) pointing out the first reference on the The National Council Against Health Fraud page, pointing out that it is a non-profit agency, is somewhat silly and b) pointing out that the link itself isn't a good one because it's login-only? I'd normally just remove it, but sometimes the skepticism pages attract a lot of hostile traffic. Thanks, WLU (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I can understand what you mean about it being "somewhat silly," but these types of contentious articles often include details that would otherwise seem unnecessary, precisely because of their contentious editing history. The demands of critics often mean that notability issues and other details need to be bolstered with very clear references. In the case of the NCAHF and Stephen Barrett articles are constantly attacked by editors who believe in conspiracy theories, so their theories have to be punctured with the truth, which can be found and documented. That may be why this is written as it is, but it still seems rather clumsy to me. Maybe we could improve the flow by including a few words in the references, instead of in the lead itself. That way no information is lost and it will read better. What do you think about the matter? I haven't been following along there for some time, and the last edits I made a long time ago were very insignificant. -- Fyslee / talk01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I was just wondering about the article history, I think my preference would be to just re-write and move references out of the lead. I think it's a silly thing to have to reference, but I know that it's sometimes necessary. But is non-profit status really that controversial? As is, the reference in its current incarnation is useless unless you've a membership to the linking site. I think I may take the direct approach and ask on the talk page. If it's that contentious, I'd rather start on the talk page I think. Thanks for the reply, if I've need of your expertise I may re-visit (and natch, if you notice I've messed up the page please fix it!) WLU (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration notice
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Have a look at talk here. I don't believe expanding the list's second tier to include anything beyond "a statement by a group" was ever discussed. best regards, Jim Butler(talk)08:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just trying to make sure I understand. You would like the Psuedo page to include all subjects claimed to be pseudoscience regardless of notablility? THat would include charges made by little know skeptic groups and individuals? Anthon01 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
We need to follow inclusion criteria policy. Article content require V & RS, no matter who the source might be. If they are published in a V & RS, then they would nearly always be allowable. Crackpots and off-the-wall types will often fail on this count. Notability factors in because that's what gets them published in the first place, so notability is a factor, but not the only one.
So are you saying that Jim's objection above where he states "a statement by a group" is the inclusion criteria, are you suggesting that changing the title will allow you to include "a statement by individuals?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough I haven't followed along in that part of the discussion! What you're saying is true. It would allow the use of V & RS in that list, just as in all other lists and articles. Those are the inclusion criteria for all articles. We have no good justification (other than wikilawyering and editorial bias) for making an exception. It is ridiculous that very notable and famous individuals can't be quoted. We're talking about people who are our modern day Einsteins, the top of the scientific world, who can't be quoted! Of course there should be attribution, and we can't claim (in the article) that they are speaking for the whole of mainstream science, even though it is true that they share the same POV as mainstream science. Attribution, sourcing, notability, etc., are all factors that will help readers make up their own minds. -- Fyslee / talk06:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what happened?
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am trying to figure out what happened to push Avb into retirement. Two other editors also retired on the same day. If you have any ideas or reasons for Avb leaving, I would appreciate it. Obviously, you are welcomed to do this via email. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk15:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Email on it's way. Do you know if Avb got stuck in this mess? [8] I think it had to do with fringe editors and this looks like a possible place. I am just now trying to figure out all of what happened here. --CrohnieGalTalk12:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
email me an anon account please
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks, Fyslee. I look forward to collaborating with you and bringing the best-practices research with respect to manual and complementary therapies and improving Wikipedia's scientific standards.
EBDCM (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Great! I would love that. I already have a great working relationship with Dematt, and he is about as model an editor here as I can point to. Follow his lead and you won't go wrong. If you study the chiropractic article, it was first when he started editing that we made any real progress, and boy did it happen! Until then some editors were determined to make sure no criticism was included, no matter how well sourced, and that's a violation of policy here. Dematt understands NPOV and he included criticism very nicely and of course I and others allowed him to add much positive material because he did it in a manner that didn't make the article a sales brochure. NPOV is rather deep. It deserves study and takes a lot of editing experience to begin to really understand it. I'm still learning....;-) -- Fyslee / talk07:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Experience with this editor?
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Fyslee. I'm wondering if you have any experience with User:Danaullman? From the Homeopathy talk page, it looks like you might. I'm trying to explain some basics of how online archival journals work, but either I'm not explaining things clearly or he has a difficult time understanding the points I'm making, or something.[9] Is there a better place where you'd suggest we could talk about this? Thanks for your help. Antelantalk11:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I had never heard of him before he was incivil. His comments were rather odd, as they didn't address anything I had said, and yet mentioned enough to obviosly have been directed at me. At first I thought it had been posted by accident on the wrong page, since the edit summary was pretty much identical to another comment of his on another article. I then checked him out and discovered he was a banned user who had just been adopted and unbanned. -- Fyslee / talk01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please include me in that category also. It's not that I don't understand what you are saying Antelan, it's that I'm not sure the policy is being used in an even-handed manner. Nothing nefarious or certain, and perhaps it simply has to do with my lack of time here. You list a number of requirements for notability but say there are more. Why not provide a complete list? And other editors have a different list. But you don't get to see the other objections until another study is provided. It gives the impression that the goalpost is being moved. What is also confusing to me is the high bar applied to homeopathy and the low bar applied to List of Pseudoscience.
I am also beginning to suspect that, like real life their are fundamentalist on either side of the debate and moderates in the middle. The fundamentalist are more willing to apply IAR when they can't get their way, and those closer to the middle are willing and able to find NPOV. I know Fyslee, considers DeMatt a model editor so I will try to learn from him. I guess I could go back and look at the history of the Chiro page. How far back should I go to see when DeMatt input began to have an effect? Anthon01 (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to say exactly, but he learned the ropes rather quickly, learned how to avoid wars and how to make friends. If you start here on his talk page, and then just use the next 5-10 minutes going forward in the edit history of that page, you will see our relationship building and how we learned to trust each other, we always AGF, and we helped each other. He came to realize that I know an awful lot about chiropractic, and I supplied him with material, and he did the same for me. He taught be alot too! Dematt knows how to write for the enemy, which requires a good understanding of NPOV. Even though we still disagree on certain aspects of chiropractic (he believes in subluxations), I totally respect the man and his abilities as a chiropractor and editor here. We can disagree agreeably, and we always AGF. That makes for a good partnership. We watch each other's backs, and help each other to see things from the other's perspective. That way we all come out of the experience richer, and articles include all notable and conflicting POV, written nicely. My dream is to meet him some day. -- Fyslee / talk01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Pseudoscience RfC
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm waiting to comment. I'm not sure what to think yet. I don't have a good knowledge of the history of pseudoscience on wiki. At this point I'm not sure which is the greater evil: a title which is broad, and so plays down the flakiness of the subjects it lists, or one that is narrow, making it difficult to include certain subjects. Rracecarr (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Sadly no such 'higher authority' exists, and ArbCom has made clear on a number of occasions that it generally will not get involved in content dispute. You may or may not be familiar with now now-old essays WP:Expert rebellion and WP:Expert retention, as well as numerous others along similar concepts. Generally, were such things have been suggested, people have shot down the concept of scientific arbitration. I think what you said [10] is probably the right way to go, however, with the understanding that often other terms considered synonymous may be used. In other lists and articles, people have also allowed weak synthesis - were an author states the definition of term X as applying to Y and does not state opposing details, term X may also be used to describe Y. As I believe I have stated elsewhere, the fact that scientific investigation occurs around pseudoscience complicates matters further.
After being involved with the WP:EPISODE debate, I'm a bit loathe drag myself into the CAM, Quack and pseoudo discussion and get bogged down in more mess! But it does tempt, foolish that I am :P I shall close by saying that I have had a look through your edits, and I am very impressed! You seem to a well-reasoned and cool-headed contributor, something we need more of! LinaMishima (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not aware of those essays, so I have some reading to do! Thanks for the info, and thanks for the encouragement. Yes, these subjects are contentious, but those subjects have long been my hobby, especially chiropractic. BTW, I'd like to know more about you. Feel free to email me. -- Fyslee / talk03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee, you are far more patient then I if you are willing to discuss dilution with him at length. I will finally get around to commenting on the RFC at List of Pseudo. Good luck and cheers! Baegis (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess you are referring to this discussion. I'm not interested in a long discussion about dilutions. I only need a relatively short answer to one question. I suspect it may take some patience on my part, since this question rarely gets a straight answer (or any answer at all!) from believers in homeopathy. They usually beat around the bush. Since Dana is supposed to be an expert, I'm hoping he knows something that other homeopaths I have asked don't know. If he really is an expert, he should be able to answer the question between his third and fifth heartbeats after reading my question....;-) We actually have a V & RS from a spokesperson from Boiron regarding Oscillococcinum, a 200C product. Boiron has stated that there is no difference: "There's nothing in it." [11] That should actually be in the Oscillococcinum article. -- Fyslee / talk08:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You might want to consider
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think this is worth discussing in light of all that's going on today. Wikipedia policies and guidelines need to include and discuss in depth how to properly collaborate and offer some effective responses for editors that refuse to collaborate. At the heart of the disputes that I've looked at recently are at least a couple of editors that have chosen not to collaborate. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
News & Notes - Portal:Wine is a now a Featured Portal! National WINE PRIDE will be on the line as we see which wine country articles got the most page views in the month of Jan-and you maybe surprised at which countries beat out the US & California. The Judgement of Paris it's not.
Wiki-Winos - VanTucky Meet our new GA liaison and find out what in the world is he doing with those sheep?
This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.
H
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It was above my comments. I was wondering how admins would interpret what was going on in the responses. Comments that were not true, or were also off-topic (it wasn't Barrett that was being quoted in the part I wanted included), etc.. It's up to them to decide how they will interpret their new article probation rules. I hope that it reigns in editors of all persuasions and helps us all stay on topic, avoiding provocations, apply policies, stop wikilawyering, and above all avoid personal attacks, etc.. No side is completely innocent in this matter and it needs to stop. This is the first time I've seen the community take the situation so seriously. Much of it can be traced back to edits, inclusions, and comments (all related to promotion of homeopathy) designed to encourage usage of links to the book of an editor here. 'nuf said. -- Fyslee / talk02:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I subscribe to this magazine so
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Never mind, I just looked at the Homeopathy page and the article is already listed in it. Though, couldn't this also be used in one of the Barrett sites? Sorry about this, I just started reading the Homeopathy site again when I saw this article used. --CrohnieGalTalk16:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict] It's excellent. BTW, that link isn't working. The matter has already been taken care of and is now used as a source in the homeopathy article. Take a look here.
I clicked the link and it worked for me but if you want to make the link shorter and easier to access, please go ahead and do so. I don't know how to make a tiny URL. I did locate the article on the Homeopathy page though when I started to read it. I'm trying to get an idea what all the hoopla is already with this article. I have noticed, because I've been lurking the pages there, that a lot of editors haven't been commenting, when for a couple of days my watchlist was mostly filled with postings to the Homeopathy page. It just seems like a handful is now posting there which I personally find a little strange. Anyways, which Barrett article do you suppose this link could be used at, Quackwatch, Barrett's article or all of his articles? I personally found the article in Newsweek quite distressing and very sad. --CrohnieGalTalk17:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears the link works now. Here is a shorter version, the one to the article itself: http://www.newsweek.com/id/105581 As to the Barrett reference, I'm not sure right now. Too many things on my plate...;-) The homeopathy situation is under alot of pressure right now as a subject probation has been placed on all things homeopathic at Wikipedia. Even the slightest forms of disruption or incivility can call down the wrath of the gods, and I think it's working. A good thing. -- Fyslee / talk17:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have been watching and I kind of get the feeling things are selective as to what is blockable. To me, and I am not an active editor there (I believe I posted one time which was a suggestion for everyone to stand back a bit and reread the article and the talkpages. It got blown out of the water by a couple of editors almost immediately, I was hoping to help with all the anger and get people to think about what others are saying since my lurking seems to tell me, IMO, that some editors are talking past each other. Be careful, if I am correct, two editors, maybe three, have been blocked already. --CrohnieGalTalk18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
I've been banned at Homoepathy for 'stonewalling' on the page by east. No diffs just a proclamation. Please advise. Anthon01 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I can only second guess what has happened, but I'd take a look at your edits and comments in the immediate time before that block. My guess as to what is happening is what happens in the real world. When one is presented with evidence, one is expected to conform one's beliefs to the evidence. While the presentations of references and citations at Wikipedia is not absolutely binding on you as to your personal beliefs, a refusal to change and adapt makes you appear to be stubborn or incapable of learning from the evidence. That could be termed "stonewalling" when it leads you to persist in opposing or undermining attempts to get the fact that the overwhelming scientific opinion of homeopathy as pseudoscience and nonsense included in the article. In the immediate situation you kept the pseudoscience category off the article, when it does belong there. Regardless of a consensus or not, you should be attempting to help create such a consensus and finding more quotes and citations that back up inclusion of that fact.
BTW, it's probably a good idea to take a pause and think things over. Wikipedia is huge and I'm sure you have other (uncontroversial...;-) interests. -- Fyslee / talk18:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious? Have you notice that other editors like Jim Butler and Art Carlson have taken the same exact position on this issue? Anthon01 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't analyzed Art Carlson's editing, but I do know and respect Jim's position on categorization to some degree. He has some good points, even if we may not exactly agree in all instances. If there is any subject that qualifies as pseudoscience, I can hardly think of a more notable one than homeopathy. The repeated assertions of undocumented homeopathic nonsense as fact by Dana, Whig, and Peter only go to reinforce that opinion - that some prominent believers in homeopathy (including editors here) seem to class their beliefs as fact, instead of recognizing that they are beliefs and humbly couching their statements as "I believe,"this might be possible," "we are uncertain at the moment," etc.. They make no attempt to be objective (by seeing the subject from a POV outside of their own). They make absolute statements, where real scientists are more careful when dealing with questionable areas, or areas in which there are uncertainties. True believers are often characterized by their total certainty about subjects considered quite uncertain or even disproven by science. They don't consider them questionable or uncertain at all. To do so would shatter their belief system. Believe me, I've been there, so I know this type of certainty and belief business from the inside. You have no idea how far out I have been in my younger and more naive and ignorant days.
I have some additions and/or modifications to my comments at the beginning of this section. NPOV policy requires that we cover subjects in depth and from all notable angles, without any deletionism of opposing POV. If edits and inclusions are in keeping with policies here, they should be enabled and not hindered. "I don't like it" isn't a valid editing modus operandi. Editors should also learn to use a sixth sense for what is considered reality and scientific consensus in the real world, IOW outside the world of alternative medicine, New Age, and metaphysical thinking. That position is the closest to "truth" at the present time. If that position changes, the V & RS will reflect that and enable updating of article content. Regardless of personal beliefs, it is best to adopt (for the sake of refraining from advocacy) that POV while editing. This means that even if one believes in homeopathy, one should only include ideas, statements, and history while in the "writing for the enemy" mode, which is part of NPOV policy (see also the WP:WFTE essay).
When adding material which one knows the scientific mainstream opposes and which they consider OR (IOW by very definition all alternative medicine), one should only do it to ensure that the whole story is being told (thus following NPOV), not to advocate the position of such sources. That is advocacy and is forbidden here by ArbCom decisions. It isn't open to debate. That's why you will see in my editing that I support the inclusion of ideas which I consider nonsensical, if those additions ensure better coverage of the subject, and the additions are encyclopedic and are not against inclusion criteria, IOW from V & RS, among other things. Currently uncertain or undocumented personal beliefs and wishful thinking are OR in the real world and at Wikipedia and can only be included using V & RS that express such beliefs. If one is seen as advocating such positions, one risks being accused of advocacy. Edit while in the mainstream thinking mode and you'll lessen the riskiness of including non-mainstream POV. It needs to be done, because those POV are part of our world, but they should not be included to advocate them. -- Fyslee / talk03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You and I both know that in many ways, Homeopathy is unquestionably Pseudoscientific. The issue is finding a major scientific body that says it without reservation. In the past, NSF report was considered the closest to achieving that. It doesn't unequivocally say it. Anthon01 (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't be necessary to artificially raise the bar to a level that policy doesn't require and which expects a major scientific body to make pronouncements of a type they rarely if ever engage in. (Now that is poor grammar!) Scientific bodies don't usually comment on such matters. OTOH, prominent scientists and individuals do it.
BTW, this is the first indication I have noticed that you were in any manner skeptical about homeopathy. I wish you were more open about that in your comments and editing. It would likely help your reputation alot here if you edited and commented as if you were not a total believer. -- Fyslee / talk16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The issues between us in regards to WP are interpretation of policy. My goal is to help write the encyclopedia based on RS. How do change a scientist or some scientists to the consensus of scientists without violating WP:RS? And why is the high bar set on the List of PS not applicable to the rest of WP? Case in point regarding the use of citations.[14] Here is an example of the inappropriate use of the citation. I know that my pointing this out upset many and enhanced the "POV pusher label," but I was right and the project is improved by it. Anthon01 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Anywhere there is a spillover of the homeopathic discussions. I have just placed it on my own. That way it will be noticed and watched by other editors and admins. -- Fyslee / talk08:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that I've had time to think about it, the template is placed at the top of article talk pages, but placed like ordinary comments on user talk pages. I guess that's what I should have done, just like has happened other places. I basically did what Whig did above, but in the wrong place. -- Fyslee / talk04:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I think the warning the whig has placed on others pages was sanctioned by the probation, not meant to be given more than once, and his delivery of one to anyone the same as giving himself the warning. So he is already aware of the probation policy. Anthon01 (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just butting in but on ANI and on other users pages that are active on Homeopathy and other alternates have had this template put on their pages. Some have had just a warning type template about the articles being on probation. So in my opinion it seems to depend on the editor who puts the warnings up. Hope this helps a little. (no sorry I don't have the exact link to ANI about this) --CrohnieGalTalk12:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was around when the notices went out. The template was placed on talk pages mostly, the section text notice was placed editors personal talk pages. The first time I saw a template placed on an editors talk page was when Fyslee did it a day or so ago. Anthon01 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
controversial
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The short answer is "no", but if it has been diluted and succussed into oblivion (IOW likely not a single molecule of honey left in the individual dose of remedy), then it could be called homeopathy. -- Fyslee / talk14:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
So basically are you saying thathHomeopathy is the dilution to almost nothing of whatever it is being worked on? I am trying to figure out what homeopathy is and I've always thought that it is basically 'water' from a substance that has been watered down. Though I did think that Honey diluted a little (whiskey was always good for pneumonia :)) was considered homeopathy as I also though that Rock sugar was the same. It was used when I was little by melting it down in water and a cough syrup was made, and it worked. I don't know the way my mother made it but she made cough syrup for me and my brother when we were youngsters. Would this kind of thing be considered homeopathy or something else? thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The things you describe have nothing to do with homeopathy. Unfortunately one occasionally runs into uses of the word as a synonym for natural remedies or herbal therapies, but that is very inaccurate. The remedies themselves involve preparations of almost any substance (or even the light from Venus!) that is then diluted in water (or alcohol, or if a solid in sugar) using a special ritual process (it involves magical thinking) of dilution and succussion (a method of shaking), which is repeated many times. The most common dilutions are far beyond the Avogadro constant, so there is about zero chance of there being a single molecule of the original active substance left in a single dose of homeopathic medicine. The oft used illustration of diluting a drop of something (like arsenic) in the Atlantic ocean and then taking a teaspoon full of that water and drinking it, in the belief that the original substance is going to have any effect, isn't far from the truth. Homeopaths get around this problem by using the water memory explanation, which is of course nonsense. Here are a few good quotes: "Homeopathy is God's way of thinning the flock". - dpr. "Homeopathy is bullshit. Only very, very diluted. It's completely safe to drink." - Peter Dorn. "Homeopathy, where a little of nothing is better than something at all." - Jeanne E Hand-Boniakowski, R.N. -- Fyslee / talk03:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well with what you are saying, the article should be a speedy delete. If it is nothing then there is nothing to write about! :) Thanks for answering, I'll try to find time to research if better so I have a better understanding of it. --CrohnieGalTalk15:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
A speedy delete would be against policies and unencyclopedic. The subject is notable and therefore should be here. -- Fyslee / talk04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the basic principle in homoeopathy is not the dilutions, but "like cures like": the idea that a disease will be cured by something that causes similar symptoms to the disease. The dilutions, and the "law of infinitesimals" (which states that the curative power of a remedy becomes stronger the more dilute it gets) were introduced when it turned out that substances which cause symptoms actually made the patient worse when administered in appreciable quantities. There are proprietary products on the market which include ingredients at "1X" or "2X", i.e. a dilution of only 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 but which are described as "homeopathic", although most homoeopathic medicines sold are much more dilute than this, typically from 6X (1 in a million) up to 30C (1 in, er, 1 with 60 zeroes after it). At potencies higher than 12C or 24X there is literally nothing left of the origina substance, and even at the lower potencies commonly used there is almost certainly not going to be enough for a pharmacological effect.
So honey could be considered a homoeopathic treatment, even if not diluted, if it was being used to treat a condition that it might be expected to cause or make worse (diabetes, perhaps? DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!) Brunton (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, the reason I use honey and not suger is because 'dark' honey is supposed to be good for Crohn's disease and patients that have problem with absorption and weight loss do to surgery and the disease. Since using honey, I have maintained my weight and when absorption tests are done they are all within the normal range. I still plan on studying up on homeopathy better because so far what I have learned is that most of it if not all of it is bunk, sorry if this offends anyone, but this is what my research so far has told me. Thanks again --CrohnieGalTalk00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've been referred to you on the subject of Pseudoscience...
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
... and having read through some of your talk page, I can see why! I was having a bit of a discussion at my (and WLU's) talk page, about whether Reflexology is a pseudoscience. Two options. 1: It's not, because it never claimed to be scientific, or 2: It is, because it doesn't conform to the scientific method. If you don't mind getting involved, what d'you reckon? Thanks. :) Lottie (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
May I ask what your interest is on the subject? Are you a user, practitioner, skeptic, etc.? It doesn't make any real difference to me, as I can cooperate with people on either side of the "skeptical fence". It's just nice to know people's background. -- Fyslee / talk04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a practitioner, I've been trying to make the article on Reflexology NPOV but it's hard work. I'm trying to be really careful not to edit it into oblivion, and I don't want to make it seem like the article is promoting it as effective or dissing it as bunkum. I think part of that is establishing whether or not it actually is a pseudoscience, and saying so... Lottie (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice to meet you Lottie. Keep trying for an NPOV article. When it has V & RS that make claims it's effective and make claims it's bunkum, then you may well have arrived! It's a controversial subject and the article should show that controversy. I believe it's a pseudoscience because it makes some claims that are falsifiable, others that aren't, makes wrong anatomical and pathological claims, and fails to adhere to the scientific method. That's my opinion. What is your position on the matter? -- Fyslee / talk07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
My position is a little bit wobbly. I've never really been shown proper scientific evidence that it can find illnesses and make people feel better - on the other hand, as a practitioner I've had many people tell me how much better it made them feel (especially with hormonal problems and pain management). I have a few theories as to how it helps, but they're not exactly proven with the scientific method...
When I was being taught the techniques, never was I told that reflexology could diagnose problems, nor was I told that it was medically... erm... correct? I'm not sure of the right word. On the contrary, we were told that our practice was in no way medical or scientific, and that we could not indicate that the imbalances found in the foot correlated to illnesses, nor could we claim to cure people. It was made clear that reflexology was a relaxing therapy that has roots in Chinese meridian theory and that some people believe in that and find it to be helpful.
So I'm of the opinion that as it's not trying to scientific, to cure people or to diagnose anything other than undetectable energy imbalances, it's not pseudoscience. I think my logic here fits with the wikipedia article on pseudoscience - Pseudoscience may be defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but... Well, it doesn't in my experience. I suppose some people try to make it appear scientific to give it credibility, which may be where the problems come in... I think it must basically be down to individual experience and training, which varies a lot.
Thank you for your input, it's appreciated. If it's okay, could I please paste your answer into the talk page subject? I think the more views we have, the better. Another idea that's been put forward is that we can't say it's a pseudoscience unless we have a reliable source to back it up, which makes a lot of sense to me. What do you think?
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Fyslee, I think you meant to type "unfalsifiable" in your recent edit on pseudoscience. sillyrabbit reversed your edit, which is resonable, but if you had typed unfalsifiable I would have prtected your edit. Zonbalance (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
90%
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Estimated 90% of chiros believe in vert sub. Why not say so at top? It's a fundamental belief; it's a fundamental point. Your formulation is vaguer, is it not? Mccready (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about "truth", but about documentable facts and documentably notable opinions, even including nonsense (like homeopathy). Not every single point in an article needs to be mentioned in the LEAD. The first step is inclusion in the article using very good sources. Then, if it's a significant element in the article, agree with the others on how to include it. Your (and QuackGuru's) track record makes it hard for anyone, including myself, to support your editing, even when I fully agree with the truth and factuality of what you are attempting to include in the article. You make skeptics look bad and everyone freaks out whenever you appear at an article. The LEAD is the worst place to start. Always start with inclusion in the article. And before any of that, start on the talk page. If your suggestion is supported without edit warring, then it's a pretty good inclusion. -- Fyslee / talk02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Solipsism. What's the point of documentable facts and documentably notable opinions if not to establish truth? Then you contradict yourself talking about truth. The LEAD is the best place to start. If it's wrong there then we're wasting our time. See you at the talk page. And I note you have NOT answered the question I put. Mccready (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I've raised the issue on the talk page. Perhaps in your goodness you will deign to attempt to support your position there since you have now avoided doing so here on two occasions. And you talk about collaboration?? Your slur on my editing style does you no credit and is erroneous. Mccready (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
How you Doing? I noticed you made many contributions to the article on the Los Banos Raid. My grandfather just wrote a book on my great Grandfathers experience at Los Banos and being that there are only a few books on the market about the subject I figured you Might be interested. www.warscrucible.com
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Fyslee, I will concede that AK (unfortunately) still forms a part of a minority of practitioners, but adding medicine is not redundant. Chiropractic and medicine are inextricably linked, for better or for worse and it should be included. It's pretty established that chiropractic, and some may say perversely, is specialist medical discipline. I hope you reconsider. EBDCM (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Even adding CAM is redundant, as the article is in the CAM category and it is already linked in the article. The "See also" section shouldn't be allowed to balloon too much. -- Fyslee / talk06:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Help requested in preventing deletion of Ferdinando Pisani, an article about alternative medicine
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. As I notice your interest in alternative medicine, I wonder whether you might consider voting to keep the article above, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ferdinando_Pisani. Whetehr or not you agree with the views of the subject (many people don't), I think that deletion would be against free debate on the subject. Hope you agree. Cheers, --Nando65 (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Aye, Aye, Captain!
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks Fyslee. Under your and Dematts steady leadership, this article has improved dramatically while respecting various POV. It's been a pleasure working with you as well and I'm glad to be part of the community! EBDCM (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
I was wondering if we could work on improving the AK article. There's been a few papers of late which invalidates the AK approach using manual muscle testing (MMT)for the diagnosis of nutritional and visceral diseases. If not sure if this is notable, but in 2007 the province of British Columbia, Canada, has banned the use of AK. Perhaps this could be added? EBDCM (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. We can work on it here or on your talk page. Has BC really done that? Wow! That's pretty courageous. Please supply me with some links about it. -- Fyslee / talk04:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
We'll do it here; you have a good hx on the subject. We share a common goal; science-based clinical practice. I'm currently using the BC example as evidence in the current reformation of CCO policy regarding techniques, procedures and devices. Perversely enough the current president and vice-president of the Ontario college are hard-core principle/subluxation-based! Check out the link: http://www.pureandpowerful.com/ I have a source which tells me the current CCO council is completely dysfunctional because of those 2 and their tradional views. Regardless, the OCA (www.chiropractic.on.ca) is going ahead with developing their own practice guidelines that reflect the current educational paradigm at CMCC and being proactive while the CCO sorts out their internal differences.
10.6 A chiropractor will not utilize the applied kinesiology method or technique for diagnosis called moding or hand moding. This involves the practitioner or patient placing the fingers of one hand in a particular configuration while at the same time; the practitioner performs muscle testing to assess the structural or functional components of the body.
That sounds like the BDORT technique, or some variant. Whatever the case may be, it is basic AK thinking, and the Danish Chiropractic Association also distanced itself from AK. Do you have any other links? -- Fyslee / talk05:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Never had heard of BDORT. The Dr. in question there, is he a DC? This is the only link I know of, but it's a big one, IMO. It gets the ball rolling and sets up my argument for national standards which the CCA is looking into adopting. Hallelujah! ;) I'll do some PubMed searches this week for more AK stuff, I'd be surprised if much of it was in favour of the diagnostic methods employed. EBDCM (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's reference number three. That article still needs improvement as Cuthbert (User:Scottcuthbert, User:Scott Cuthbert, and various of his IPs) and his supporters have repeatedly tried to make it a sales brochure for AK, and some of his work is still evident. It's an interesting phenomena where a practice used by many chiros is also debunked by other chiros in V & RS. It couldn't be better. -- Fyslee / talk07:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I assume we are striving for accuracy here is that correct? Hand modes are from Clinical Kinesiology and is not Applied Kinesiology. THought you might want to know. Anthon01 (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Please ignore my snark remark. The EBM makes complete sense to me, but what do we do with procedures that have yet to be tested? There are many in all the professions, including medicine and PT. I don't have a problem with adding info on hand modes, but it shouldn't be added to the AK article as this is not part of AK. Anthon01 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
News & Notes - Every American Viticultural Area now has an article! Keeping up with the B class wine articles and find out which start class article of top importance was viewed almost 43,000 times between Dec-Jan.
Also, what wine articles have the most potential to reach Good article status?
Wiki-Winos - Meet User:EvanProdromou! Evan who? Well let just say that another "wiki-wino" has come out the closet to say Hi and share what his project Vinismo can do to help Wikipedia's wine articles.
Wiki wine articles on the Web - Guess which prominent wine personality thinks that Wikipedia is one of the best wine resources on the web? Also find out who thinks our Mission grape article is lacking and how our Plavac Mali article cleared up some confusion about the grape's relationship to Zinfandel. Plus, was Mick Jagger really singing about Sommeliers in the Stones' song Beast of Burden?
This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.
Help for Randy
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I hurts me to see what this user is going through. He just doesn't get it. Maybe you can help him. I think he will accept it better from you.[15] Let him know how you don't believe in homeopathy. [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm really getting tired of fighting the same old battles with the same old POV-warriors on the same old articles. I know you have something to do with Greenland (maybe a Viking ancestor?). Do you want to clean it up with me? I watched a Discovery Channel program on Greenland (narrated by Kevin Spacey). That doesn't make me an expert, but I'm good at digging up references and learning something new. Our only concern will be global warming denialists, who will claim that the ice cap is reducing because vikings are actually living under the ice and their fires are melting it. :) I don't want to do it alone, so if you're interested, it could be a fun break from arguing with the usual suspects (hopefully, you get the allusion). OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions22:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Aids
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
If you templated me with don't template the regulars, then you likely are following this discussion. I would like you to weigh in very much, and contributions to the talk page would be appreciated.Merechriolus (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
It seems that some anti-homeopathy editors do not believe that Royal Copeland should be described as both a US Senator and a homeopathic physician[17]. To me, it seems that this information IS notable. Perhaps these editors will listen to you more than they will to me. I do not mean to be canvassing you, and if you disagree with me, that's OK. I simply would like your thoughts on it. And yes, you know that good reference to Copeland's connection to the FDCA of 1938. DanaUllmanTalk06:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I haven't been editing those articles, I'm not sure what reasons are being used. To those interested in homeopathy (both of us!), it's a very interesting fact. Whether it is undue weight in the FDCA article is another question. I certainly think it could be justified in the Copeland article, and a section of the homeopathy article dealing with legal status. It would be very relevant there. Hmmm.... -- Fyslee / talk13:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...but with Copeland's homeopathic background, it helps explain his desire for greater regulation of drugs and even restriction to their access and to their marketing. Context provides meaning, and encyclopedias are a perfect place for context (along with content).DanaUllmanTalk14:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Depends on what the sources say. That may have been his motivation, or his motivation might have been to ensure that homeopathic medicines were protected, but that's speculation. We know that the result has been a special protection for homeopathic medicines, which are not required to meet the same standards of efficacy as other medicines. -- Fyslee / talk14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
His enthusiasm for homoeopathy certainly provides some explanation for the homeopathic pharmacopeia being grandfathered into an act he sponsored. Brunton (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I think the connection certainly deserves mention in the homeopathy article (in a section on legal status) and in the Copeland article. There should be several good sources. I have listed several at the Copeland talk page. -- Fyslee / talk02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Symptoms as Defenses & Homeopathy
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I responded to your question that you raised here [18]. It took me a couple of days to respond, and because we sometimes miss what others say after such a long "delay," I thought I'd alert you to my response. Ultimately, I feel strongly that something needs to be said about the homeopaths' view of and respect for symptoms in the 1st (or 2nd) paragraph...it is that seminal to homeopathic thinking. DanaUllmanTalk03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Fyslee,
I hope you don't delete any of my posts on the Homeopathy Talk page.
I was irritated because alleging that Homeopathic medicine is placebo and it's practice Quackery is objectionable.
That's probably what caused me to do what I did.
I have now created a new account, please protect me from being blocked (especially by George William Herbert) for sockpuppetry again. I promise not to be disruptive.Thanks a lot for all your help, in advance.Ramaanand (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Ramaanand (Dr.Jhingadé)
No help from me. You are obviously not here to edit (and have stated so on your talk page, among other places), and just here to advocate homeopathy. You fail to realize that Wikipedia is not an ordinary website, and the talk pages are not discussion groups. So far you have received a second chance, and I regret having supported it. I wish you indef banned. You are nothing but trouble. -- Fyslee / talk04:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Wiki-stalking
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Greetings...can you help me understand what is and isn't "wiki-stalking." For the record, I do not follow others around to see what they are editing and then edit. I go where I feel it is important to go. While I certainly expect some editors to have some similar topics of interest, I sometimes go to idiosyncratic articles (about which I have expert knowledge), and I find that some editors who follow me around to not have expert knowledge but who simply work to undo my work. What is and isn't allowed or encouraged here? DanaUllmanTalk13:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
Fyslee,
Do not accuse me of using a sock puppet again. I have not done so and to suggest this does not assume good faith. Also, sending private emails to Arthur Rubin suggesting that I did is in very poor taste. Lastly, I checked into the IP address of anon who appears to be from the same general region as myself. Considering that in Northern Ontario we have 1 Internet provider that covers a large geographic area and serves close to 100 000 users, to suggest that this was me is beyond reprehensible. I am asking for a formal apology. Please do so. EBDCM (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You are in violation of WP:LEGAL by accusing Fyslee of "slander." In addition, what proof do you have that Fyslee sent an email to Rubin? And that two anti-science skeptics from Northern Ontario edit in the same manner on the same article is highly coincidental. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So, EBDCM is "claiming" that some mysterious email has been sent to you, and through this claim is making legal and wikilawyering threats to another user? Is that not cause for blocking the editor? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions19:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee had accused me of using the IP sock puppet. I sent no such email to Fyslee. Anti-science skeptics? Hello, are you talking about me here? The edits I made cited all scientific papers. This has got to be some kind of joke suggesting that I am an anti-science editor. Tread carefully, OrangeMarlin. EBDCM (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
EBDCM, you may want to reword that; it sounds distinctly like a threat to me, someone who is uninvolved in whatever dispute seems to be brewing. Antelantalk18:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think that's a wise idea, but I think that was OrangeMarlin's suggestion. I was referring to the tread carefully part. Regards, Antelantalk19:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Geez, OrangeMarlin does not seem to get it and is calling me an anti-science editor. That is completely untrue. Take one good look at my contribs and my userpage and tell me I'm anti-science. Why do you continue to spread misinformation and why do you delete cited material at chiropractic claiming it was vandalism? EBDCM (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's get this back on track. EBDCM is throwing around straw men diversionary ideas about "vandalism" and "anti-science" accusations. That is not the issue here. The issue is one of using an IP to evade a block, and continued edit warring. It's about the same bad behavior that got you blocked, then indef blocked. You returned and violated the agreement that got you unblocked. That is an aggravating circumstance. -- Fyslee / talk20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Your e-mail
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
In reply to your most recent e-mail, is there any point to it? If not, I'd rather you didn't send me such e-mails. I have no interest in participating in this apparent quarrel. Sandstein (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
I perceive that discussion there has long passed the point of diminishing returns. Probably best just to let him say his piece and move along to other things. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Fyslee, I wold advise that you drop the accusations of sock-puppetry towards EBDCM, as CU did NOT show that sock-puppetry was occuring. As stated elsewhere, I am also a Canadian that edits WP:Chiropractic, I also have a Canada userbox on my userpage, and yet you haven't accused me of being the anonymous user or being EBDCM. DigitalC (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who has made that accusation. CU backed up the suspicion nearly as much as can be done by CU. It has nothing to do with him self-identifying as Canadian. We aren't totally dependent on CU in this case. The previous edit warring that got EBDCM blocked, then the defense of EBDCM's edits by the IP, and EBDCM's continuation are all part of the picture. Actually many different factors and charges have been raised by many people, not a few of whom are admins. They all factor into why he got blocked, regardless of the actual wording used by the blocking admin. You have come into this quite a bit late and are arguing out of ignorance of the whole situation. Even I came into it a bit after it started, and other's comments were what alerted me that something was going on. I quickly saw a pattern, investigated, found that I already had most of the evidence readily at hand and found some more. I then reported my findings. Others found it quite convincing and EBDCM's replies rather evasive, which didn't help his case. It's not a simple case. If anyone finds errors in the way it has been handled, then they'll have to do more than appeal or complain. They'll have to provide diffs of clear errors. If my part in this has been in error, I will certainly apologize and seek to get his reputation cleared, but so many other factors and charges (which I haven't had anything to do with) have been part of this, that lots of other people will need to have their issues dealt with as well. -- Fyslee / talk06:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your part has been continued unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry. The CU did not come close to backing up the suspicion as much as can be done by CU. DigitalC (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I see that you are still speaking from ignorance of this matter. It is far more complicated than you seem to realize, and you really need to reread the evidence presented. Unfortunately the comments regarding this whole matter are spread out over numerous pages. I am not going to do your homework for you. You can take up the geolocation evidence with the CU clerk. The evidence demolished an excuse (inability to drive an hour back and forth so quickly) EBDCM has used. Even without the IP and sock matters, EBDCM was already in a lot of trouble and violated an agreement, the one that got him unblocked. That's a serious matter. -- Fyslee / talk07:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The CU did not demolish any such excuse, because the CU did not demonstrate the EBDCM was the anonymous user, only that he uses the same ISP as the anonymous user. The CU was possible, NOT confirmed. SomeNonaSaint (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
CU isn't magic pixie dust. It's most useful when there's an exact match of IPs. Anything beyond that is varying degrees of iffyness. For example it would be trivially easy for a sockpuppeter to arrange things so that CU came back "unlikely." Raymond Arritt (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, lets just suppose that EBDCM was NOT the sockpuppet. Is there a way he could PROVE that he wasn't that anonymous user? No. So, unless it CU comes back as confirmed, I don't think one should continually accuse a user of being a sockpuppet. DigitalC (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Physical therapy edits
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your recent edits on the PT page. With respect to one edit (Professional organizations: same links found below), in the future please consult the talk page and at least acknowledge the comments when making a change dealing directly with a discussion. Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Project Chanology summary template
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The template should not be substituted before the TfD discussion is closed, even if consensus presently stands in favour of substituting. If you are to substitute again after the TfD closure, please use the subst: function in order to preserve the entire contents of the template, including the image. Thanks. Ayla (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Agreed. I think you'd agree that creating an environment in which editors are supported in learning WP policies and how to apply them is our best bet for long term improvement in WP. To do this an experienced editor might have to give up the power differential they possess through extensive knowledge of WP ways and assist a newcomer who has valuable time and material to contribute to an article, even if the new-comer is advancing material that the experienced editor doesn't want in the article. In my view the with-holding of NPOV: "a view may be spelled out in great detail on pages specifically devoted ..." at Talk:Chiropractic is regretable.
Later: That picture above is beyond description - Is the real thing much better? and how often per month would you get to see the Borealis? (My favorite meat at the moment is kangaroo - also lean and delicious. Would like to do a taste comparisome.) Read that Marcello Truzzi came to consider "..more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof..." flawed in that it begs the question. Your section on NPOV does accord with the view I was confident you'd agree with (at least in part) - fortuitous indeed! I see no quotes on your user page recognising the (to me) essential difference betweeen science and the scientific method. I know of no human activity into which human foibles are't injected in large amount. Do you think science is an exception? On WP I've seen respected editors, even one scientist quoted on your user page about fringe articles, leave a lot of misleading information on a fringe article - their thinking seems to be "as long as its negative to the fringe topic its not a problem".
No expectation that you'll reply to any of this - though my choice would be to know more about seeing the Borealis. SmithBlue (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Northern Lights can indeed be spectacular and fascinating. It may be compared to the same fascination and relaxation one gets from staring into a fireplace or hearing the waves on the shore, or the sound of a waterfall. All are sensory input that each has their own appeal to different people. Did you read (my) article about Reindeer hunting in Greenland?
The thing that's wrong with medicine and science is that people are involved....;-) They are definitely not perfect. Science is, to the best of my knowledge (at the moment!), the activity that has the best formalized built in self-correcting mechanisms. Truly scientific medicine examines its own errors and is self-correcting, in contrast to many forms of alternative medicine that are relatively unchanged over hundreds or thousands of years.
Truzzi was a remarkable person, and whatever the possible weaknesses in his statement, I still consider it one of the best. -- Fyslee / talk06:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks so much. Sometimes the "little things" are important too. This is one way to avoid controversies while making some contribution to improve the encyclopedia, including (as you may have noticed) improving articles about subjects I even consider dubious or quackish. Much appreciated. -- Fyslee / talk03:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Revert
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I realize that this edit is a partial revert of your prior edit, so apologies for that (I hit an edit conflict while writing it). Let me know what you think of the 2 paragraph lead, and don't be shy about reverting if you dislike it. Antelantalk04:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to it! I was considering doing something like that (maybe not exactly like you did it), and you've done it good. Keep it up. -- Fyslee / talk04:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
From his articles in local newspapers, books, articles, our conversations, and our correspondence Truzzi was a poor investigator of the paranormal. He was just too easy and willing to believe things that didn't jive with others, whether they accepted the paranormal or if they didn't. He made up things to satisfy his own needs. Whatever. He certainly was remarkable! Information of this type is not welcomed on the Wikipedia. People like to hear things that make them feel good about their heroes. Magicians that believed in the paranormal loved him.Kazuba (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that's true, I wouldn't be surprised. He seemed to lose his "edge" (scientifically speaking) with time. Unfortunately not all truths are appealing, and he was in company that liked to believe what appealed to them. It's an unfortunate case of a skeptic who had some holes in his critical thinking and who suspended his disbelief, which is a dangerous thing to do. BTW, if you have any sources (of any kind) for what you say, please provide them to me, either here or by email. -- Fyslee / talk03:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Zetetic scholar
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
The only thing I'm going on is the title has I have seen it. If you have other sources from the editors or members themselves that might shed light on the matter, then that might help. The fact that the S is in lower case was my only cue. -- Fyslee / talk01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[[:Image:zetetic-scholar-12-13.jpg|right|right|256px|thumb|Zetetic scholar journal founded by Marcello Truzzi ]]
Hmmm. I guess I'm not familiar with the concept of a "dropped capital". I've been away from the US for too long! Of course titles are usually capitalized, so I figured this might be an exception, similar to Apple's iTunes. I'll change it back, since that would make it abide by conventional capitalization rules for titles in English. -- Fyslee / talk14:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Sorry about that. No offense intended. It would probably be best if that comment was moved to the right place, right below the author of the article, who is getting quite worked up several places, which is precarious of him to do, considering he is editing under conditions established when his indef block was undone. Just in that AfD he makes a number of very improper personal attacks which his unblocking admins would be very displeased with. They might reconsider reestablishing his indef block. -- Fyslee / talk04:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Common, Fyslee. No one but you insists I've made personal attacks. Is this more of the same nonsense as before? I'd appreciate it if you clarified your position and provide a diff where I've might have inadvertently crossed the line. Cheers, CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It should be pretty obvious. Just take a look at several of your comments there. They are very negative comments about editors, and are not about the subject. That's a violation of NPA and WP:TALK. You would do well to refactor those comments, IOW strike them out, like this. I have chosen not to report it, but if you insist and don't see it yourself, it can be arranged. Tread carefully and your past problems can be ignored. That's what I'd rather do. -- Fyslee / talk04:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not proper to give uninformed editors some context to the background? I'll look at the comments tomorrow; but I think I stuck to the facts. However, if I did breech the line, I'll definitely cross them out. Gnight. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand your frustration, and the urge to defend your work is also VERY! understandable. The way things work here, once you have "gone public" with it, you no longer own it and others can have a field day with it. That's hard to take. That's when it's easy to cross the line, and again, I understand you, but try to be more careful.
Here are a few diffs that are examples of personal attacks:
You can start by striking them through. BTW, you may not have noticed, but I haven't voted in this, and have been watching with interest how this article develops. My few edits have been constructive. You do have abilities, which I have always recognized. Just be aware that even a grade schooler here has just as many rights as you or I. It's all about sources and attitude. Expertise in the real world isn't a trump card here. In fact trying to play that card is a dangerous thing. Just use good sources, allow opposing POV (remember that your POV is an "opposing POV" to others..;-), gain the confidence of other editors, and you'll become a star! -- Fyslee / talk05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You just don't get it do you. You admit that my edits are good but just not formatted correctly. Then you waste time and effort in your last post on the admin page. Let's go through this again in case you don't understand. There is no evidence that acupuncture is effective. Thus articles need to say this. Each article I have edited has presented FIRST tiny slim snippets of possible evidence for the effectiveness of acu. We both know this is far outweighed by all the negative evidence. Why do you defend the placement of this ridiculous material ahead of good science? Do you not understand the idea of UNDUE weight? Mccready (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Straw man as explained elsewhere. The issue is your edit warring and vandalism of leads with an extremely poorly formatted large addition that is not suited for a lead anywhere. That's it. -- Fyslee / talk04:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikistalking
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Your latest edit on Scientific_theories_regarding_acupuncture has to be seen as one of the worst and most ridiculous you have ever done.[20] This has got to stop. RECENTLY is unencyclopedic and you replaced 2006 for it. Numerous is redundant and povish. You are capable of better. May I suggest you pull your socks up? Mccready (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You just don't have a clue as to what wikistalking really means. You are under observation because of edit warring. Get used to it. -- Fyslee / talk04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
about what
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Would you please redact, remove or rephrase your comments about QuackGuru made in this diff?[21] They can be construed as aggressive and inflammatory, and are not helping the situation. Thank you for your understanding. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No problemo. My "telling it like it is" isn't always the best policy, so your admonition is appreciated. -- Fyslee / talk06:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Could I impose in a similar way again and ask you to redact this comment? From my reading, he was expressing concern about blind reverts and that he just intended to clean up some reference formatting. QG has been trying to use the talk page appropriately of late and hasn't been pushing through edits in the mainspace. Despite his history, I think a little good faith is warranted considering his improvement of late. We should encourage him to continue down this road of talk page discussion and avoiding mainspace pushes, and such comments can be deeply discouraging to editors trying very hard to turn over a new leaf. If you're not sure what he intends from a post, go ahead and polite ask him, or point out gently what you're unclear about regarding his intent. Thanks for understanding! Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Will do. You might read my comment immediately before that one, which (although not naming him) was also for his benefit, since what I describe is not the way he edits. I haven't noticed any substantial change, partially because I haven't seen evidence that he (literally) possesses the ability to change on that point. His MO and Mccready's MO are remarkably similar. I'm a skeptic, just like them, and I can't stand their destructive way of editing. It makes skeptics look bad. -- Fyslee / talk06:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It is quite honestly appreciated. From my look over things, it seems like QG is being much more polite and productive very recently. I hope it is a trend that continues and I think we should give him a little support and encouragement to help him along. If he has an unfortunate inability to change, it will become apparent over time. However, it's not unheard of for a disruptive user to turn over a new leaf. If he is making an apparent attempt, why not extend a small amount of faith that it's the start of a trend and help keep him engaged in productive discussion? Does that make sense? Vassyana (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried to make the change but had an edit conflict. It turned out to be him actually removing my comment! I revised it and left my honest advice, without the letter. The one difference in MO between the two editors is that Mccready doesn't use the talk page much, while QG uses it an awful lot, but still to endlessly insist on his proposed changes, makeing them, and refusing to accept the objections of other editors. He then repeats his arguments, makes the changes, which inevitably get reverted by numerous editors of all persuasions. This pattern is carried on endlessly on the chiro talk page and other pages. (This pattern of returning to make the same rejected edits is similar to Mccready, and that pattern hasn't changed for either of them.) He simply doesn't get it when even his skeptic allies distance themselves from him and continually appeal to him to stop making unconsensual edits and to be more collaborative by experimenting with the edits on the talk page where we can all come to a consensus, and THEN add them to the article. -- Fyslee / talk06:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Your refactoring was reverted. I was going to revert that, but I figured I'd stay out of it as much as possible and just alert you. DigitalC (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like OM got confused. I fixed it to the more civil version, which QG still can't stand. Too thin skinned. -- Fyslee / talk07:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your stance. In this instance I think an intervening edit slipped by unnoticed and you reverted the wrong version. No harm done. -- Fyslee / talk13:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That one's an ownership minefield which I've avoided for some time. The movement is producer propelled and the producers and quacks are fighting for the right to continue to deceive customers, while enrolling customers to support the movement. It comes down to whether truth in advertising should apply to the supplement and alt med industries. The producers and quacks don't think so. You can thank DSHEA for the situation. -- Fyslee / talk13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not add a criticism section to the article. I know it is discouraged under a new WP consensus but in this case I think it is a quick fix to improve the balance of article without major and tedious rewrites. MaxPont (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[ec] I basically agree. While it would be a "nicer" format if documented criticisms were fletted into an article at the appropriate spots, this appoach is often shot down by those who guard the subject, so a criticism section needs to be used. It has the advantage of being an up front attribution so no one is uncertain about why it's there. It places a fence around a section that includes information that must be included in one way or another. Any article about a subject that has had any documented and well sourced controversy should include mention of such controversies, and such an article without such mention is in violation of NPOV and weight. -- Fyslee / talk14:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the recent comments on the talk page? There seems to be fair discussion going on and as far as I can tell the editors there are being reasonable and not combative to ideas and changes. I don't know enough personally and don't have the time to do decent research there so I just pop in ocassionally with suggestions, not too often though. I hope to have some free time soon to be able to research better to become better informed but I think all the editors above could help with this article. The comments to me on the talk page suggests that there is big problems with the article that needs fixing. Of course this is just my opinion, --CrohnieGalTalk14:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I haven't been there lately. The original article was one huge advertisement for who knows what organization, person, artist, their personal website, lots of spamlinks and unreliable sources, etc. It was awful. Things have improved alot, but still need work. -- Fyslee / talk14:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I take it you took a look? I remember that too, and I really thought it was going to be a speedy delete to be honest. I know the section with all the red links are up for discussion to delete the whole section, which to me is a big start. I have to be honest, I don't know if this article can be turned into an aceptable article and not read like a giant advertisement. I know it's been worked on but I haven't a clue how to make it read like an acceptable Wikipedia article, thus why I thought that you and the above editors might be able to work the article better. ;) --CrohnieGalTalk14:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It's an unofficial "movement", but there are many organizations that use the words "health freedom" in their titles, IIRC. This article is very vulnerable to OR, and WP:SYNTH may be the only way it can be written. -- Fyslee / talk15:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Disappointed
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Fyslee, I'm disappointed in your comments at Jehochmans talk page. I thought we had agreed to disagree. If you had really been interested in helping things out, you could have always commented to me privately or on my talk page. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What's up with you skeptics? It's not an implied threat, its a common saying. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I got fished in (no pun intended). I thought Fyslee and I had buried the hatchet. Are you trying to drum up some kind of controversy, Orangemarlin? CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
CS, I'm just tired of you always pointing fingers at others and not "getting it" (that you are just as guilty of what you accuse others of doing). You think you're innocent, but you also have blind sides. We all do, and you need to get off your high horse and stop acting as if your POV or editing is somehow superior to other's. You have been reverting to the same behavior that got you into trouble before, and it needs to stop. A bit of humility would help. Then the playing field might be more even and we could all work together without accusations and conspiracy theories. It's very tiring and uncollaborative. -- Fyslee / talk05:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
He's been blocked several times, so I'm sure he will again. I thought CAM promoters were skeptics, since they're anti-science, and therefore, skeptical of rational and logical thought. Who knew? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is skeptical of rational thought, just the motivation of the rational thinkers. IOWs, we all know that statistics can be manipulated, I think that is what all science minded people are skeptical of, regardless of which side of CAM you are on. The same holds true for global warming, polar bears and the endangered species list, etc.. Anytime there is money involved there is going to be reason to be skeptical. -- Dēmatt(chat)17:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Orangemarlin, you are not being addressed in this conversation. It's between A & B so I'll see you later. Fyslee, no one is claiming anyone's POV is superior. No one has been reverting to any behaviour, au contraire, every single concern that I have raised regarding questionable editing practices at chiropractic has been raised by other editors as well including Dematt. Regarding me getting it, I "get it" perfectly well. There are 2 classes of citizens here on wikipedia, and rules for each. You can deny it all you want, it has been brought up to ME by chiropractic passerby's and others in emails. Regardless of what your personal opinion is, I bring strong references to the table and am a writer. And, to be perfectly blunt the major reason why chiropractic is having difficulties right now is a refusal by Eubulides to heed majority consensus (drop effectiveness of the profession; it's a misnomer) and his refusal to include important studies to counterbalance his claims (manipulation is CAUSATIVE of stroke). You can attempt to put the blame squarely on me but that would be just missing the point that there a more editors who have serious reservations about Eubulides' drafts which have been THE major source of debate? Scope of practice? Not so much controversy, skeptics just don't want to see chiro being portrayed as legitimate. Education? It's straightforward too, however skeptics don't want this stuff in here, it's not controversial enough. Eubulides contributions? Vaccination (undue weight) Safety (fear mongering tone with refusal to include Task Force studies that presents a very different conclusion that cSMT=strokes that Eubulides presents) Effectiveness of Chiropractic (not valid and not present in Dentistry, Medicine, Physical Therapy, Osteopathic Medicine or any other health profession) etc. Au contraire, it's EUBULIDES' edits which has caused the most disruption. With Dematt back here it should help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CorticoSpinal (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 May 2008
Ah! Don't think I'm blaming you for everything, or that you haven't brought good things to the project. I just wish you'd begin to realize that you are part of the problem, especially your dominating tone and your constant (most of your talk page comments) violation of WP:TALK (by commenting negatively about other editors, especially Eubulides). It's very tiring and detracts from the actual content issues. I share some of your POV (for example, the "effectiveness" matter), but I'm tired of the rhetoric. BTW, if you have a "master plan" for how you wish the article should look (I think I read somewhere where you talked about your visions for the "finished" article), then forget it. A collaboratively produced article will never fulfill the dreams of any single editor, nor should it. If that happened, it would likely violate NPOV. The last editor who had such a master plan (for the whole subject of CAM here at Wikipedia, with all its articles and projects) was John Gohde, and that attitude caused him to exhibit behavior that got him banned.
BTW, OrangeMarlin and others are welcome to participate here. This is Wikipedia and it's MY talk page. While I reserve the right to request someone to not make comments here, I don't recall ever having done so, IIRC. Only when a user has seriously disrupted specific discussions on my talk page, or has vandalized my user page, have I done so. It was probably only once, and the same user. -- Fyslee / talk03:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding and allowing me to clarify. First, this is the first mention about any possible violation of talk, but I'll read up on it. Second, I do not have a master plan for the article; Wikipedia does not work that way and that page is way too dysfunctional for it to occur. My tone with Eubulides is from 4 months of dealing with underhanded tactics to promote Ernst and plant controversy after controversy. The simple fact is a lot of editors disagree with edits, his style and his rationale regarding what qualifies as a notable source. Dematt is currently going through the same experience myself, SmithBlue, Levine2112, DigitalC, the DoctorIsIn have encoutered. The guy doesn't budge. This is not collaborating. I know I may not have any credibiity with the skeptics, but surely Dematt has proven himself as a fair editor. If he cannot achieve consensus with Eubulides, no one editing chiropractic can. Anyways, I apologize if you interpret my tone is dominating (I'm sure others would disagree, however) but nevertheless, I think we can all agree that having Dematt back should help improve things and I've already stated that I would cede to him. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Dematt is a wise editor who seeks to include all POV, as long as it is done using good sources. Inclusionism usually makes someone happy, while deletionism always offends someone and leads to conflicts and edit wars. Fortunately Dematt isn't as hotheaded as either of us! We can learn from him. Good luck. -- Fyslee / talk05:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Jinghaadey again
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I suggest you start warning recipients that any cooperation with this user will make them act as meatpuppets. Then start deleting it with a comment about why. -- Fyslee / talk14:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Did you ever finish "Flora and fauna of Greenland"? (I'm clearing out my watchlist and came across the name. I'd actually thought of it a few months ago, recalling the good photos and captions.) I'm not sure where guidebooks belong in the "wiki-" universe, but I'm sure it's a central position. ·:· Will Beback·:·10:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't want to be a jerk and I do want to make these articles better. I posted a comment recently at the bottom of the Talk:Allopathic medicine page. I hope you'll respond if you care to. I do have a different point of view on this issue. I think the recent revamping of the Allopathic medicine page is an improvement, one that many participated in. I'd like to see the same kind of cooperation on other pages where this discussion is relevant. That's my intention. One helpful tool in facilitating these discussions is to focus on the content, not the contributor. Bryan HoppingT 19:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
External links
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As a general style rule it's better to avoid a large set of external links. Articles should cover the material, citing external sources as necessary, and should not rely on an external-links section to fill gaping holes. But the most important problem with the external link section you mention isn't its major style problem. It is that its commentary is heavily biased towards one side of a controversial area. That must be fixed regardless of the style problem.
One other style issue is that it's almost always better not to segregate content into "critical" vs "supportive" sections, as that is just another form of POV forking. It's not neutral to push one side off into a ghetto section at the end of the article.
I realize I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but the choir should keep singing even when things look black outside, no? Eubulides (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your recent cleanup of the Nelsons page, I really appreciate it. Having other editors come in and work with what I've put up is essential to get away from the COI issues. It's slightly weird that I obsessed so much over COI that supporting the notabillity didn't really occur to me. No-one has really objected on the COI issue, which I was expecting.
Can I also appologise for the perceived personal attack. It wasn't meant to be and I tried to say so up front, but looking at your talk page above (which I didn't do at the time, only your user page) you've clearly had a lot of people throw crap at you, sadly most of them from the industry I work in. In reflection it was a bad post from the get go and I should have realised as much.
Further to some of your comments above about wanting to find non-disruptive editors to work with in this field, I might be in a position to help although obviously I have to be careful both for potential COI in some areas and for my own professional protection. I can't be perceived as dragging my company into debates, nor making statements on thier behalf. (Which in reflection I should have thought about before putting up the Nelsons page). Anyway, is there an e-mail address or similar where I can contact you privately?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you've handled the COI matter wisely. No problem. You are welcome to use the "E-mail this user" link on the left side of this page. -- Fyslee / talk13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Question
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Do you know if User:Ncmvocalist is an administrator? I have seen him lately in all sorts of place and he seems to act like an administrator but his user page doesn't say. I'm just curious because of some of the comments I have seen lately. Thanks, and hope you are well, --CrohnieGalTalk18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Crohnie! You can use this tool to see if someone is an admin. Just put their name in there (without "User:"). Ncmvocalist is not an admin. Antelantalk19:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Antelan, this will be handy. I just thought he was from some of the postings I saw he seems to act like one at times, it's hard to tell. Hi Fyslee, obviously my question was answered, hope you are well. --CrohnieGalTalk21:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply and "outing"
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I'm willing to help you - but you need to understand, it does not give you the right or authority to violate policy - it is inappropriate to remove/modify other people's comments, even if they are attacks, even moreso when you are involved. There are other ways to legitimately remove sensitive sort of information, but it's not through breaking policy and removing it yourself. OK?
Vanishing is a possibility, not just a suggestion, and it's rather complicated. Truly vanishing means I can't ever return to Wikipedia. As far as removing personal attacks, it happens all the time and isn't against policy. The continued discussion of this situation and your following me around and undoing stuff involves a degree of involvement on your part that is not necessary and is definitely harrassment. You can just look the other way and mind your own business, instead of minding other people's business. -- Fyslee / talk13:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
While I do not claim to be an expert on policy, my first reading of that thread occurred after the redaction but did not feel disjointed. I do not care to check the text that was actually removed, but no relevant information appears to have been lost. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you could vanish and edit here again, but I think it might be unethical, because you do have a real COI, and you've been cautioned by ArbCom. Such information needs to be avaliable to other editors, otherwise it means nothing. Vanishing would have to involve telling the Arbitration Committee what your new username was, and promising not to edit articles on which you have a COI. I couldn't vanish for the same reason. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——19:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are confusing COI with POV. Having a POV isn't the same has having a COI. Even having a shared POV isn't the same as a COI. Even in the cases where a true COI exists, such as an article about oneself, one's company, or one's product, it is only when that COI influences article content that it becomes a problem. Because of that risk, it is advised (but not required) that one use the talk page and refrain from editing the article itself. It is actually in the interest of Wikipedia that editors with knowledge about a subject area edit in those areas, but they must remember that all other editors have just as many rights as they do to edit those articles, and that the best articles are created through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold conflicting POV, because they understand NPOV and do what they can to ensure that opposing POV are presented properly, IOW tell the whole story. As far as my supposed COI, it has never been established and I was warned to be cautious about any appearance of a COI: "3.1) Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits."[22] That caution applies to many of us who hold strong POV on various subjects. It's pretty much common sense and I have always considered it good advice to do what I had always been doing ("use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV"), and to be more careful lest others misuse the fact that I have a POV. -- Fyslee / talk01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. I did mean COI though. The ArbCom didn't directly find you had a COI, but did mention that in connection with you. Really, my point was that disconnecting yourself from the ArbCom by vanishing is not really a good option. It wouldn't be with me either. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ——01:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there were many accusations about a COI, but since it didn't exist, no convincing evidence was presented. I don't like the idea of vanishing. I'd just like to get along with others and that we just respect each other's wishes regarding the degree of privacy we wish. Some don't care, others do. -- Fyslee / talk01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
