User talk:Clean Copy

--Archive --Archive2 --Archive3 --Hgilbert/Archive Waldorf project

whole medical systems

Is a start of a duplicate of Category:Alternative medical systems which is the exact same content only has more in it due to being older, I know how difficult it is to spot all the categories so I appreciate your effort but it's a duplicate category. Sticky Parkin 17:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that the Wikipedia categories seem to be based upon NCCAM categories (see for example Template:alternative medicine, and NCCAM uses "whole medical systems", not "alternative medical systems". Maybe the old category should be renamed. Hgilbert (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are based on NCCAM, some not, if you can prove with a ref that it's the same I have no probs moving it, however I suppose that's not NPOV as it's saying the systems are complete medical systems when in the eyes of medical consensus they are alternative or complementary medical systems if you see what I mean. Either way, your current page would have to be deleted so that we could move the existing page if we decide to- otherwise as non-admins we can't. Sticky Parkin 17:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See Complementary_and_alternative_medicine#NCCAM_classifications; this appears to be the basis for the classification. The citations in this article supposedly supporting the usage "alternative medical systems" do not use this term, but rather "whole medical systems". Looking further on the web, both usages seem common; a merger and redirect might be appropriate. Hgilbert (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Unfortunately, the acrimony at that page is related to a consistent campaign (that you have participated in) where people with obvious agendas relating to their support for various alternative medicine systems are attempting to "define away" the notable and prominent criticisms that the claims of those systems are pseudoscientific. Hans Adler is, for whatever reason, a supporter of this type of behavior as are you, Levine2112, Jim Butler, etc. If you want to make your critique of my actions stick, I suggest you find an outside voice. We could use people who aren't connected to fantasies like anthroposophy to help edit that page.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you are focusing on avoiding personal attacks. hgilbert (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Source?

Hiya, spotted this on your user page

"Bernard is right; the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything." -- Louis Pasteur's deathbed words

And I was wondering if you have a RS for it? The only reason why I ask is that I have seen it across the Internet, but so far nobody can actually provide a RS to source it. So I'm after one - especially that such a fundatmental quote you would think would appear in Louis Pasteur? Ta Shot info (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have it from Oliver Sacks, Awakenings (Vintage 1990 p.228), but he doesn't give his source. hgilbert (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This one Awakenings_(book)? Shot info (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's it. hgilbert (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta Shot info (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medical systems template

Re this change: could you please follow up at Template talk:Alternative medical systems #Anthroposophic medicine? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Donehgilbert (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

IP hopper

Hi I saw your requests at WP:RFPP. I recommend removing them for now. See this AN thread for more details. The rascal is slowed down at the moment.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Your request for rollback has been granted. You may also find this this page helpful. Y. Ichiro (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal chat 15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/N

I just updated the section link in your comment to WP:NPOV/N since I renamed the discussion to Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts#Anthroposophical medicine. I believe that this is within the bounds of WP:TALK, but feel it polite to notify you in any case. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Balancing info in Pseudoscience list

Hi Hgilbert -- just wanted to know that I read and belatedly replied to a thread including you and ScienceApologist regarding the inclusion of balancing scientific info for alleged pseudosciences (which on our list are known as "pseudosciences" due to inclusion drift). I agree with your position, more or less. There is some similar discussion under Talk:List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts#Version_1.3 regarding TCM. I also want to say that I appreciate your level-headed talk-page comments. The label-pushers have pushed the article about as far as it can go, and lately ScienceApologist and a couple of sympathetic editors have basically, by brute force, edit-warred chiro and acu on to the page. It doesn't look like anthroposophic medicine should be there either, unless I'm missing some group consensus statement. Anyway, I'll be taking this to ArbCom for clarification of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE soon; I'll notify you and all others who have contributed, and we'll all get our chance to weigh in. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 11:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know much about Steiner's medical ideas, but his educational ideas seem pretty good. Like any visionary, he's not gonna get it right all the time; the key is finding the pearls and giving them their due. --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck. I don't know what chance this will have in Arbcom; historically, skeptics have been supported there. hgilbert (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

organic farming

hi, i requested a move of organic farming to organic agriculture, as i proposed on the talk page, which i consider uncontroversial. since you edited the article recently, if you think this is not the case, could you respond to my proposal on the talk page? thanksTruetom (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)