Jump to content

User talk:Verbal/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Verbal! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 21:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Welcome

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).


Thanks for all of your recent work on medicine-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy probation warning

Please notice that homeopathy-related articles are under article probation. Because of massive edit wars on the article, the administrators, by consensus, have established additional ground rules for editing the article homeopathy and related articles. P.D.: Notice that by editing those articles you put yourself under the probation terms, since the talk pages have a notice at the top of them --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - I've been reading all the stuff for the last few days :) SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk)

I understand how annoying people can find typos that they missed. I am sorry for editing your comment withoot your permission Smith Jones (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bathini Goud Brothers

Hello SV, I noticed that you added a POV-tag to the above article. However, I could not find any discussion / substantiation for this in the article's talk page. Please can you add your comments; otherwise, it is likely that any unsubstantiated POV claim may be disregarded. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Holograph field

I removed the speedy tag on this article, as this is not a candidate for G1, but feel free to propose or nominate it for deletion. Thanks for your work in fringe theories and similar by the way, as this is quite needed there. Cenarium Talk 18:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I realised afterwards that it was probably the "wrong" kind of nonsense! I hoped the admin would fix it if it did match one of the other csd's, but I'll go have another look. Thanks :) --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

response toyour question

i was born in Teexas to parents of German descent and i moved to Virginia a couple of years back. I know my writing is sometimes hard to read but its because my comp + keyboard is broken making it hard fo me to use backspace and certain keys. Smith Jones (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

response to another question Re Talk:Homeopathy celebrendorsments

"No, we could use the fact that celebrities have been paid to promote these products to support the statement that homeopathic remedies have been advertised by celebrity endorsement. However, advertising and popularity are two different things - one is hoped to lead to the other by the people paying for the advertising, but it isn't a necessary connection" -- Tim Vickers, a statement that could be interprested as arguing that all of the celebrities who support homeopathic medicine have been paid by mystirious "people" (Big Homeopathy conspiracy theories?!??). Not only that, Vickers later confessed to "just cynical about "celebrity endorsements" in advertisements". essentially he admits that he believes that rush limbaugh, Bill Clinton, the Pope, and the British Royal Family were all paid to publically endorse homeopathy. Can that be right? Its possible that Vickers meant something else, but it cant imagine what else. Later on, ""I think any normal person assumes that if a celebrity appears in an advert then they have been paid to do so." Smith Jones (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The key part in TVs quote is "advertised by celebrity endorsement". He is talking about advertisements (like TV commercials and paid for promotions in magazines) for homeopathic products/centres - things that are generally paid for and for which the celebrity receives a fee. I'm afraid that it's a big jump from this (which is true of celebrity endorsements for anything) to saying that all people who support homeopathy in public are bought and sold; Tim never said that and never stated or implied that the people discussed have been bribed. You are right to be suspicious of all advertising, whether it features celebrities or not. I think that you've misinterpreted his statements here. However, I'm sure it was unintentional - but I also think TV was not in any way at fault. I hope you see this? --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you are rigbht. In that case, it must be a matter of record that the endorsements by celebrities are not bought and paid for. After alll, nowhere does it say all of the endorsements in question were part of TV shows. If we want to claim in the article that thre were financial incentives involved then we should get a source. I am sure that Tim Vickers might be right about some of the celebrendorsements but certainly not all of them and I think we should mention that in the other article whose name i have chosen to conceal. Smith Jones (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
TV was responding to your comment that: "testifyIn print ads and TV and radio commercials, such celebrities as Lauren Hutton, Larry King, Rush Limbaugh and Lindsay Wagner testify to their effectiveness." that hoemopathy is being popular. (my emphasis) These are adverts, hence the assumption must be the person speaking was paid unless it is known otherwise. CW later list is of people that have used/endorsed the use of homeopathy independently, and hence are not suspect of being paid (unless a source is found that states otherwise). The distinction isn't a hard one to make (usually, but some adverts try to look as though they are editorials, copying the style of the newspaper they appear in) - but the difference in usefulness to an encyclopedia is important. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As seen on TV (marketing) prod

User:T-rex removed the PROD without comment. Care to take this to AfD? I'll support deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

SPA

You invited me to debate Homeopathy with you here. This is best done on the talk page for that subject. But I notice that you seem to be using a new single purpose account but also seem to be an experienced editor. Since this topic seems to cause editors to be banned from this topic, please clarify your status. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way is my account an SPA? Have you looked at my edits?? You should debate the article on talk pages, they are not a forum for discussing the topic. I am active on the fringe theories notice board and have joined a number of debates through there. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Your edit pattern fits the MO of the usual SPA, as explained by that article - an immediate and intense interest in a disputed topic or group of related topics. I mention the possibility since, if you are a bona fide new editor, you may not be aware of the suspicion that this will tend to arouse. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. What would you suggest I do to to remove this doubt? My initial interest was in the abuse of "Allopathic" in certain medical articles, and I have an interest in science and fringe theories generally. I've also tried a bit of vandal spotting, page fixing and the removal of non-notable articles. The science articles tend to be in pretty good shape though, while I find the debate on fringe articles to be very interesting. What are your interests? --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Colonel, just AGF. Lots of editors here have edited under IPs for a long time before registering. That is the most common explanation for why seemingly new editors are so experienced. The article's talk page is for improving the article, not for advocacy, which is a forbidden activity here. Trying to promote fringe POV and nonsense like homeopathy just doesn't cut it on article talk pages. If you want to discuss such matters, just do it in this more private forum, IF SV is willing to discuss personal POV here. -- Fyslee / talk 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see. Yes I did edit before under probably several different IPs (for several years, I have no idea what they are) before getting an account when asked to by a user I was debating with. I've never really got into WP before, and now I'm worried it's taking up too much of my time! The good thing about not having an account is that there is no watchlist :-) --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It is addicting. I enjoy learning and this is a great environment for doing so in spite of the minefields. -- Fyslee / talk 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Email and banned users

It depends. To get technical for a moment, a 'ban' is a sanction applied by community consensus and ArbCom, while a 'block' is the technical means by which a ban is enforced on a particular account. A ban generally applies to a particular individual, whereas blocks can only be given to particular accounts or IP addresses.

By default, when a block is applied to an account, the account is still allowed to send email via the 'E-mail this user' link on user pages. If a user has demonstrated that they are likely to abuse this feature, or have done so in the past, then the blocking admin has the option of disabling the email feature for the duration of the block.

Note that in the case of DanaUllman, he wasn't actually blocked at the time he emailed me; the outcome of the ArbCom case was still pending. (Of course, he might have gotten himself blocked for that email—one isn't supposed to use Wikipedia's email function to sell one's books, nor should that email be used to circumvent a topic ban.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

On TJ Bass

(whom I have correctly identified as Thomas J. Bassler, M.D., a pathologist presently listed as practicing in Spokane, WA) please note that I differentiate him as an allopathic physician because there are also osteopathic physicians practicing in his specialty in these United States (though most of us are in primary care fields like family practice). As a matter of fact, I was introduced to Dr. Bassler's science fiction by a pathologist who kept several years' worth of Analog prominently displayed on a bookshelf in his office in the hospital where I first began my practice. -- SJ_Doc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.140.111 (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a verifiable and reliable source that states theses are the same person? We can't use original research. Also, see the allopathic page for reasons why your use is incorrect. It primarily used by homeopaths and osteopaths to distinguish themselves from MDs, but it not generally used as such. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Bassler's mundane profession was an open secret back in the '70s to Galaxy and If readers. "Star Itch" was even published under Bassler's real name, complete with his identification as an allopathic physician (M.D.).[1]. Moreover, anyone at all familiar with medical nomenclature easily "got" Bassler's pathology-based puns in his Hive series stories. I haven't been able to find his CV online as yet, but Bassler's National Library of Medicine listing[2] clearly demonstrates his professional as well as personal preoccupation with running for health and exercise, which also figures prominently in the stuff he'd published in Galaxy and If. On the differentiation among the various medical disciplines, it's been more than thirty years since I took my history of medicine course, and I have no idea of when (or under what circumstances) you took yours. However, in light of the AMA's long and vicious campaign to suppress and/or co-opt those disciplines of medicine other than allopathy (including homeopathy; we have in Philadelphia one former homeopathic school of medicine - Hahnemann - and there are several inpatient facilities in the Delaware Valley that started as homeopathic institutions such as West Jersey Hospital[3]), those of us who hang "D.O." after our names tend to be a helluva lot better educated on this matter — and the differences between allopathy and "alternative" disciplines of medicine — than are the graduates of allopathic medical schools. -- SJ_Doc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.140.111 (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe you that they are the same person, but the article would be better with a reference (such as the Agatha Christie/Mary Westmacot article). MD is more than enough to identify this guy as a classically trained accredited physician. We don't have to drag DO/MD conflicts (not to mention homeopathy) into every article. Also, in most of the world allopathic is insulting and doesn't have the limited meaning given to it by DOs in the US (who took the word from homeopaths). However, this is all irrelevant to the TJ Bass article. See WP:ACCOUNT for good reasons to get an account. The name SJ_Doc may be available. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Apart from directly requesting a personal confirmation from Dr. Bassler[4] (ah, but that would be "original research," which you — for some strange reason — have pre-emptively disallowed) what more needs to be done? What I've been able to dig up with nothing more than open-source Web site information in about half an hour's work would certainly pass muster as sources sufficient to support a nice little human interest piece for the Medical College of Virginia's alumni newsletter. Since my first note to you, I've recalled having read "Star Itch" when it appeared in If back in '68[5]; an impressively strange little piece that wasn't written in the Hive series, and which hadn't incorporated in either of his fix-up novels or reprinted anywhere to the best of my ability to determine. In addition, Dr. Bassler wrote in at least one published letter to editor Frederick Pohl about the author's inspiration for "Toothpick" (a companion artificial intelligence incorporated in the Hive series stories, which was a tomato stake that he used to carry while running to fend off neighbors' free-ranging dogs when they would pursue. I regret that my forty-year-old copies of the magazine are no longer in my possession, but you know what marrying a mundane neatness freak and having kids will do to a science fiction fan's literature collection. It's something of a miracle that I've been allowed to keep my medical textbooks. As for the use of the word "allopathic," the intention is not denigration but precision. The political machinations of the AMA are such that where they have not been able to exercise government influence to constrain or completely suppress the practice of disciplines other than allopathy, they have co-opted the schools, hospitals, and practitioners thereof in efforts to wipe them out. I mentioned homeopathy particularly because when I got on staff at West Jersey Hospital, I was surprised to find a bust of Samuel Hahnemann in the doctors' library at Northern Division, and started digging into the history a bit.[6] As for those of us in the osteopathic profession.... Well, let's say that what happened in California back in the '60s taught us a lesson we've never forgotten. What that Wikipedia article neglects to mention is that the allopathic American Board of Medical Specialties refused to recognize the board certifications of California's osteopathic practitioners when the California Medical Association so graciously issued MD degrees to 86% of the Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine practicing in the Golden State, reducing trained, skilled, and experienced surgeons, internists, and other specialists to the status of general practitioners (like me). What the AMA explicitly demonstrated in '62 was that the allopaths are perfectly happy to have us functioning as their primary care referral base, but they don't want us competing with them in the prized (and much more lucrative) specialty areas. Here in these United States, there's not much at all controversial about these facts, and even in mixed MD/DO group practices, all of this is understood and accepted without controversy, denial, or acrimony. Indeed, most of my allopathic colleagues profess openly to despise the leadership and policies of the AMA even more fervently than us "alternative" practitioners do. -- SJ_Doc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.140.111 (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The word allopathic was used insultingly long before Andrew Taylor Still set up Osteopathy in the US. As I'm not a US citizen, and hopefully will never have to visit an American MD/DO in the US, so I'm really not interested in your conspiracy theories. I also fully realise that in America there is little to differentiate between a DO and an MD any more, with some local issues. This is all hugely irrelevant to the article on TJ Bass. Hopping (talk · contribs) seems keen on this stuff; I'm not.
As to sources, if you have them then add them to the article. I haven't "pre-emptively disallowed" anything. If there is a letter from him in one of these magazines, books, or in an interview or biography piece, please feel free to add the reference. Please don't mention allopathy again unless it is relevant. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. Sorry if that came on a bit strong - I'm just not interested in the allopathy/DO/MD business. I'm glad you're interested in improving articles though. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It was apparent that you're not writing from the perspective of anyone familiar with the US regulatory environment, else you'd not use the word "conspiracy" where the term "policy" (as in AMA political policy) is more appropriate. They certainly made no effort to conceal their purposes and methods. One of my preceptors in medical school had been recently certified as a surgeon shortly before this country's entry into World War II, and told me of having volunteered to serve as a medical officer shortly after Pearl Harbor, only to be informed that he would not be commissioned as such, but would be accepted as a technical sergeant interpreter owing to his fluency in Italian. He refused this option, and like a great many other osteopathic primary care and specialist physicians who were overage or otherwise ineligible for the draft, remained in civilian practice while the US military conscripted just about every MD they could get their hands upon. As a result, a great many allopaths came home to find that their patients' care had been largely taken over by osteopathic physicians simply because their allopathic health care providers were conducting short-arm inspections for the US military in exotic foreign lands. When the '60s rolled around.... Well, see Dr. Gevitz' article[7], with attention to page 284, beginning with the subheading "Vietnam War and New Jersey." Mr. Cahill was my congressman at that time, and the Camden County Medical Society's efforts were reported quite thoroughly in the newspapers throughout the Delaware Valley. The story of the AMA's suppression of alternative medical disciplines is replete with stories like this one, demonstrating that the politically powerful allopathic establishment was intent upon the pursuit of openly articulated policies of exclusion and disapprobation of these disciplines as "cults" until the adverse effects hit them in the wallet — whereupon they suddenly "discovered" that us osteopathic physicians ought not be denied the privilege of serving as their replacements in battalion aid stations, evac hospitals, and wherever else an O-3 primary care grunt might be slotted to their benefit. -- SJ_Doc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.140.111 (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Baiting

You'll have to be a bit more specific for me to be of much help, but I can offer some general comments. Be patient, use the RfC process, ask for review or modification of the article probation conditions if they're not working. Don't ever rise to the bait. (I've failed at that when dealing with some particularly obnoxious editors recently—it's satisfying for a short while, but it can confuse and conceal the matter of who is in the right behind a layer of interpersonal issues that few admins will want to dig into.)

I'll tell you flat out that Wikipedia does not have good defenses to what some have described as the 'civil POV-pusher'. As long as someone is engaging in 'civil discussion' on the talk page of an article, it takes a very long time indeed before their conduct will rise to the point that admins will intervene. I once read a column by humourist Mil Millington who described the challenges of dealing with 'chronic point blindness'; you might find it comforting—or hauntingly familiar: [8]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The New Eden White Page

I've created a new Eden White page here. If I could get someone to check it and make sure that I didn't violate any MORE copyrights, that would be great. After that, if someone could move it or give me permission to move it, that would be even better. Thanks. --Tustin2121 (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Trudeau dismabig

lol, i know how THAT fels, when you KNOW their is a word that you need but you cant call it up. glad I could help Smith Jones (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam, Drugs in Edinburgh

Thanks for edit on Edinburgh. Could you help with the argument on the Temazepam page, from where this was copied? I have a hard time convincing people that the news are not a reliable reference. (The ref in this case was a newspaper) 70.137.181.232 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

EHS

Many thanks, the same to you too. Some of these articles can be quite a headache to work on at times - nice to feel like it's getting there until the next editor with strong feelings comes along and re-writes it again! Topazg (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Phasing out periods

Gotta agree with your recent edit -- when periods are not necessary, get rid of 'em! I'm still wondering whether we've gotten to the point where we can get rid of periods on the ie. and eg. -- they look kinda funny without the periods, but academia is doing it. II | (t - c) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? I use a latex macro and all I can remember is that it does Latin in italics. :) I'm not so keen on E.g., ... --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Lakinekaki (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. I replaced your reference with the BioMed central one giving full reference information in a cite tag. How is that vandalism? Diff --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
i was referring to the section below, but had accidentally deleted that reference. Lakinekaki (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The section below does not have consensus for inclusion. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Neither does it have consensus for deletion. Lakinekaki (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wales is/isn't a "principality of England"

You are also making other factual errors, for example "Cymraeg" with is not the Welsh for Wales, but for the Welsh Language. Please note that the status of Wales as a country had been extensively debated on the talk page and a consensus reached on the wording (this included mediation). If you want to change this then you should raise it on the talk page rather than editing the page directly. At the moment its not vandalism (I disagree with Matt) as you may not be aware of the previous discussion. Now you are. --Snowded (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add the Cymraeg part. If you people to have inaccurate facts in WP that's up to them. Verbal chat 09:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but this diff] makes it very clear that you did change Cymry to Cymraeg and your comment on inaccurate facts does not match the cited evidence. Its a bit off to delete comments from your talk page that you don't like by the way (Your deletion of Matt's comments). --Snowded (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I restored to a version that had already had that change made. I didn't make that change. The in between edits didn't justify that change. I deleted the comment because it was rude, failing to assume good faith, and because I have read it. I moved the discussion to their talk page. Verbal chat 09:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
If you revert to something then you take responsibility for it! However tracing it back it came from User talk:131.251.0.8 and was reversed along with your Principality edit by Matt. I hear your reason for deletion, but I still think its bad form unless the edit is abusive but its your call (obviously).

(ignore comments on last edit, predictive text got ahead of me.)--Snowded (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel his comment was unnecessary aggressive, but I have removed it because it's been dealt with, and I don't achieve all comments. I left the section though so I could chat to you. It might be a good idea to put a note on the talk page and in the article as a comment about the previous debates, as they were not obvious to me. I was a bit put-off by the welcome I received also. If the revert of the name had been in the edit summary then I would have caught it. I appreciate your taking time to talk, thanks. My wish was to add "largest" to the claim, one that I found surprising and interesting. Verbal chat 09:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Snowded - this guy is a troll - he just deleted my comment on this page and changed my heading. Don't waste your time - I'll be reporting him. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. This is a bit aggressive, no? My edits were intended to improve the article (as said above). Please calm dawn and WP:AGF. Verbal chat 09:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Assume good faith Matt. I know we have been through hell on this over the last few months but this a new entrant. SesquipedalianVerbiage you make a good point about the need for a note on the talk page and in the article. Thanks for that, I will action. Be aware that we have had a nightmare on this wtih trolls and sock puppets aplenty so tempers are a bit frayed --Snowded (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I should have realised when I made the first edit that some people might take offence to this, but since it was already there I just wanted to add the "largest" fact. I'm not one of those "Wales is English" people, but I also think nationalistic squabbles are a bit petty. Anyway, hopefully in future I can make better edits and I promise to engage on the talk page more. Thanks. Verbal chat 09:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are you messing with you talk page headings? I'd normally apologise - but you now suggest Wales "is/isn't" a principality of England!! Anyone would see an immediate removal (reversal in fact) of the heading they made as trolling. Wales is not a principality of England. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I can change the headings to what I like, and the is/isn't was to show that the claim was disputed. Please don't comment here again, thanks. Verbal chat 10:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hey there! Is there something specific you object to about the moving around of that sentence? Did you feel it changed the meaning of the sentence somehow? I'd hate to think the edits were simply bad faith. WoodenBuddha (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi I mucked up my edits, hence the spate of reversions, so sorry about that. I see I've still mucked it up, so hold on a moment. Verbal chat 12:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you were taking issue with the use of the [who?] citation in my changes. I wasn't challenging the papers, but more pointing out that the current wording uses Weasel Words (click on the who link above to see what I mean). It might be an idea to change "some people point to" to something more like "studies exist that"... I just didn't want to get too involved in a debate on homeopathy, as I have little interest in the subject matter itself, other than trying to make the existing info more readable... WoodenBuddha (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine in the USA

That article is on Naturopathic medicine in general not only on the system in the USA. If you wish to include more information about the ND program in the USA specifically.. please refer to this article: Naturopathic medicine in USA

There are some Naturopathic medicine programs that grant other degrees than the ND. It is only fair to include them as well in the article on Naturopathic medicine. Jwri7474 (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, I just didn't think the edit was very good (the first part). I missed the US bias though, and agree that should be removed. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

First Sex

Yes, I was surprised when I saw her contribution history. I thought her contributions to Christianity were also kinda cute. I suppose that the rejection of her additions is the reason she thinks Fundamentalists are ruining Wikipedia. Phiwum (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

merging

I agree that diathermy needed to be merged with dielectric heating, and I am glad that you did so.

Alas, it appears that some content seems to have been lost during the merge. When I merge pages, I use the "full-content paste merger" (as described in Wikipedia:Merge#Full-content_paste_merger). After saving the merged page, then I delete the redundant stuff in a separate edit.

This 2-step process makes it less likely that I will accidentally lose content during the merge. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I included all well sourced information that wasn't already in the target article. Verbal chat 09:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I copied more stuff from the old version of the dielectric heating page. I hope you like the sources I added. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I think I just undid some/all of your changes. I didn't realise it was you as you haven't got an account (see WP:ACCOUNT for the benefits). The reason I removed the electrosurgrery stuff is that we should only have a very small summary of it in the dielectric heating article, as the main article is directly linked to. Verbal chat 13:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is no point repeating everything in every article. A brief summary with a pointer to some other article with more details on that particular facet is a good idea.
However, I am mystified by a recent edit [9] with the comment "Surgical uses: Better placed in the electrosurgery article".
Are you referring to the electrosurgery article?
If (as often happens) text in one article would be better placed in some other article, please go ahead and cut-and-paste that block of text into that other article.
Thank you. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Proposed deletion of Social services (Himachal)

fine, i think you are right. actually i was not much experienced when i wrote that article. Sushant gupta (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, all the best. Verbal chat 11:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

please stop putting silly tags on my page

I don't appreciate it. Adding [citation needed] to the unsourced statement is far from WP:Vandalism.

Why do you cite WP:POINT, when I openly say in edit summary that i want to learn how other editors add references. I am curious to see how are references and reliable sources selected when there are plenty of them.

Do you not want to be helpful and teach me?

Lakinekaki (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First lesson, read WP:POINT. The page is already tagged as poorly sourced, so all you have to do is either find a source and add it, or ask on the talk page in a new section if someone could provide a source for that statement. Your explicit point making in the edit summary made it vandalism and disruption. If you think people are treating you unfairly, then it's better and more constructive to stay aloof and not to wp:bait. Verbal chat 06:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You might also enjoy wp:cite. Verbal chat 06:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
So I see you don't really want to help. You could simply show me how you select sources by providing some, but I guess it is easier to just keep citing guidelines and policies. Also, I did try referencing few statements, but they got DISPUTED, so I think it does MAKE SENSE that I ask for HELP and for someone to TEACH ME, by SHOWING ME by EXAMPLE. Anyhow, like one other editor placing various tags on my page, I guess you too really don't care about adding content to Wikipedia, but about arguing with other editors. Lakinekaki (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not my place to spoon-feed you. Verbal chat 06:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
So why do you expect me to spoon feed you with extensive references for IYO 'fringe' stuff -- or shall I say, stuff you don't know much about? Lakinekaki (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Because your additions do not have consensus and were disputed, whereas only someone trying to make a point would question uncontroversial statements in the lead. If I'd been around at the articles inception I would have asked for more sources then. The article is tagged for more sources. Verbal chat 07:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
We have a WP:Help desk for this sort of question. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Vitriol and ScienceApologist

Hi, I noticed this thread over at SA's talkpage. I'm guessing you're referring to me calling out ScienceApologist on his edit-warring and drama? When it comes to vitriol, how does that compare to him calling me a "wackjob conspiracy theorist lunatic" and stating that expert opinion may be changing on whether tinfoil hats can protect you from those mind-control beams too"? The second diff has some background on the content of the issue. II | (t - c) 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no it wasn't to do with you - it was about a now indef. blocked user and nothing to do with the belladonna page (as far as I know). I wasn't really familiar with SA before this and I realise he rubs people the wrong way, and that's not my way of doing things (I hope!). As far as Belladonna goes, I thought about joining in but the edit warring seemed a bit trivial to me - I don't think there is reason to think homeopathy works, but I'm not convinced two sentences here is worth getting upset about - and I haven't read the talk page. I was trying to be as uncontroversial as possible in my post to SA, but by doing that I guess I left it too wide. From what I've seen of your edits I think you're a good editor, so I'm upset that I gave you this impression. I'll go over and fix it now. Please accept my apologies. Verbal chat 23:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. :) Obviously I can see how my comments were a little vitriolic as well, and the timing left me suspicious. At the same time, I feel that saying that SA seeks wikidrama is an accurate description of much of his behavior. I summarized some of the offending material over at FTN. It is undeniable that the controversy around water fluoridation is not pseudoscience or even fringe science "conspiracy theory nonsense". II | (t - c) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I'm glad we sorted this out, and I hope we're on good terms. As for SA, sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. I mostly don't agree with his manner, but that's for him. Cheers. Verbal chat 08:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and hopefully my "wackjob conspiracy theorist" leanings don't preclude good terms in the future! Incidentally, I proposed a compromise of a "brief mention with notice of ineffectiveness" over at Atropa Belladonna, which you would think that SA would enjoy, but he's not biting. Ah well. A damn interesting plant, but it is now off my watchlist and off my mind. II | (t - c) 10:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing outing from talk pages

Regarding your message here, I believe that User:Hillman has been advised to stop editing if he wishes to remain "vanished." As such, you can't expect a response. If you think his talk page messages are inappropriate and violate policy, feel free to remove them yourself. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for the info. I think they should be removed, although the info is in the PD already, it's a bit uncivil. Verbal chat 12:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

you are becomming silly

are you going to alternate tag every public IP address that I use with the username 'Lakinekaki'?

that's quite ridiculous, as only today I can probably use dozen of public IP's in such a way that you may or may not be able to track them -- depending on my mood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I wont. I'll probably tag the obvious ones I come across on my normal editing/watchlist. Why don't you just log in with your account? Or make a new one that isn't associated with your old account, stop using the old one, then avoid these topics for a short while (Rubin's AfD, Bios theory, etc)? Then you'll have the benefits of an account and will have got away from these recent problems. Maybe you already have a new account, and that would be cool. I have no interest in tracking you. All the best. Verbal chat 17:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem not to understand the point of anonymous editing. You should not be discouraging it, but encouraging it. I am not going to login, nor create another account(s). One(s) I may have are good enough. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
If there is a user ID attached to a user, a discussion tends to become a criticizing game. On the other hand, under the anonymous system, even though your opinion/information is criticized, you don't know with whom to be upset. Also with a user ID, those who participate in the site for a long time tend to have authority, and it becomes difficult for a user to disagree with them. Under a perfectly anonymous system, you can say, "it's boring," if it is actually boring. All information is treated equally; only an accurate argument will work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be away for a while - see you!

U.S.

Thanks; generally in the U.S. we see UK without periods but U.S. with them. Badagnani (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd stuff. I'd prefer "American media", but that's too "US" centric I guess! I've been running into these US/UK differences a lot lately. Verbal chat

Denialism

Re: your edit summary

I provided a list of all of the self-published (and editorial) sources on the talk page. About two thirds of the sources fail basic requirements for verifiability and NPOV balance, because they are either from blogs or from columnists who are paid to be polemic. Horologium (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah from a quick look I assumed they'd been dealt with. I hope you approve of my update of the tag. Thanks. Verbal chat 08:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Ian Blair. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sceptre (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

err, you removed it without justification. I reverted your massive removal. Don't take it out on me. Is it all defametory? I find that hard to believe. Verbal chat
WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE. Sceptre (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mark my revert of you as vandalism as I was hoping you'd tone your edit back and justify it. Justify it on the talk page. Those policies don't justify your huge removal of sourced material, in my opinion. But take it to the appropriate venue. Verbal chat
Sceptre, this is a content dispute not a behavioral issue, take it to the talk page, don't drop warnings on this editor who is clearly acting in good faith. Chillum 22:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No hard feelings this side - I'll bring it up on the talk in a few days if it hasn't already (if I remember) Verbal chat 07:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism?!?!

You accused me of vandalism when I have been trying to fix a situation that has been ongoing for some time. I have discussed the move to change the title of the list of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts in that article's discussion pages. There was support for the need to change the list's name, though nobody had yet done so. I therefore changed the name in order to make the article more accurate. Where do you get off calling that vandalism??Wikigonish (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was clearly disruptive and against any consensus, following warning of the 3RR. Verbal chat 19:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
There was discussion about changing the name, and Wikipedia advises editors to "be bold," so I changed it. The new name was not vandalism, and I resent the accusation. Furthermore, the 3RR "warning" occurred BEFORE I had even done 3 reverts, and was an edit war which YOU started! Wikipedia advises editors to assume good faith, and in this case I was completely transparent in my motives and I explained why I was changing the article's name...I repeat, then: where do you get off calling me a vandal?Wikigonish (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
That's why it was a 3RR warning and not a block. Your page move was vandalism as discussion had taken place and there was no consensus for the move, of a contentious article, and your continual reverting against other editors, introducing a weasel word, was disruptive. Please work on the talk page to build consensus and don't edit war. There is now a discussion about splitting the article, which you could contribute to - but please take the advice of others and calm down. Verbal chat 15:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to re-read the definition of vandalism if you think that is what I did. Furthermore, you might also consult a dictionary for the difference between the words "to" and "too." As for being disruptive, I was trying to make the article less ambiguous, but YOU engaged ME in an edit war.Wikigonish (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was clear vandalism, and you were edit warring before I reverted and left a correct warning on your page. I suggest (re)you read the pillars of wikipedia, paying attention to what wikipedia is not and consensus. This topic is now closed, don't comment about it here again. Direct further (constructive) comments to the article talk page. If you continue to be uncivil here, or elsewhere, and do not respect others then you will most likely be blocked. Verbal chat 07:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hendrik Schön

I'd like to know what information your change "Aftermath and sanctions: His appeal is to reinstate his PhD" on Hendrik Schön's page is based on. To my knowledge (dating to mid 2007), this section is now incorrect. University of Konstanz did not effectively revoke his PhD, so it doesn't have to be reinstated. Schön's legal counsel prevented the revocation from taking effect. The 2004 press-release from University of Konstanz was premature in that regard. If "appeal a decision" in English means "the decision is legally effective until it is explicitly changed" then this is a matter of linguistic confusion. A native speaker should then express in more appropriate terms that the University's decision never was legally effective.

If you have information contrary to the claim that he still holds his degree, I'd appreciate hearing about it. If, on the other hand, you'd like to see evidence for my claims above - there's none publicly available. If you're not happy with this, you should completely remove any references to an appeal altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.96.188 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My sources were newspaper and science publications from 2004/5. The current version reflects the sources. If you have sources that state otherwise, please add them or take to the talk page of the article for discussion. Verbal chat 06:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
My point is this: to my knowledge, the newspaper and science news articles from 2004/05 all have the same source - the University's press release, there is no other independent source of information. The press release mentions that Schön has one month to appeal the decision. This is as far as the official / public information goes. If you'd like to rely only on verifiable information, you should stop right there and not mention that he actually did appeal the decision within that period. That's already rumour, but still true. BTW, it's funny that Phil Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature gave a talk in 03/2008 at Keele University in which he gives the information that the revocation "is now under appeal". He obviously relies on Wikipedia there. Another thing: In Germany, once an appeal is accepted to be judged upon, it blocks the original ruling until a final verdict is reached. Thus, there are only two theoretically possible scenarios: 1 Schön's appeal is accepted -> he can keep his degree until a final decision is reached. 2 Schön's appeal is rejected / Schön doesn't appeal the decision -> the decision is final. There's no middle ground (appeal will be judged but until then the degree is revoked). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.97.120 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic ideas

Fascinating collection! I want to check with you before going to the talk page; do the citations for these ideas actually call them pseudoscientific or the equivalent? If not, we are running afoul of WP:OR. Hgilbert (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I got most of the refs from the associated articles and tried to choose ones that did this, but I think some might need a bit more scouting out. It depends on whether there is any misrepresentation on those pages too. I'm hoping to check them in due time, but I thought something at least showing the topic exists is better than the nothing we have. Some of them could probably be dropped, but I think each needs to be looked at to see if they are OR or not. Also, OR doesn't always apply if something is obviously off the mainstream (I don't think that applies here though). Rather than delete any, the {{check}} tag may be useful. Verbal chat 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
As a friendly recommendation, I suggest that you drop/archive/nowiki the ones that don't have pretty solid citations (if this is the case for any of them). The article clearly declares that the fields have been called pseudoscientific (or the equivalent) by notable scientific or skeptical authorities, and we should hold to this. Perhaps they will all hold up, it's a nice group! Hgilbert (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem, but I'm not removing any of these topics; removal would need justification too, on the talk, in my opinion. I didn't add them, and my first try was to try and get refs that these things exist and are idiosyncratic/PS. The refs certainly do the first, and most do the second too. The page is better for these sources being there, but this isn't the end of improvements that can be made. I've left a note on the talk page about this. Thanks for noticing my efforts :) Verbal chat 14:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Woo

Hi. The reason I reverted your addition to Woo is because there is no verifiable reference. I checked Ben Goldacre and Pseudoscience. Neither of them mention the term woo, although I see some discussion on the various talk pages about whether they should or not. Please note that the onus is on the person adding something to demonstrate through verifiable references that it is valid. Until you have done that, it is inappropriate to include the term on this page. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Check Ben Goldacre's bad science column for the guardian (published ad badscience.net) and do the google search suggested on the talk page. Verbal chat 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are links to the use of the term at Bad Science, Science Based Medicine, and Bad Astronomy, all heavy-hitters in the anti-woo-sphere. This does not, of course, constitute reliable sourcing in any usual sense, but I would !vote to keep if Woo (pseudoscience) were up for VfD. I would also say that by usage the term is more a synonym for magical thinking than just pseudoscience. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychokinesis

"You guys" were you and OM. Edit warring changes into the article is something which may be verified in the page history. The edits are slaps to the people who study psychokinesis is a scientific manner. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take back the accusation that I have slapped anyone (even metaphorically), engaged in "editwarring", or that I am somehow conspiring with other editors. Verbal chat 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wessex Page

I am sorry Verbiage it appears you have become confused. If you check the history of the wessex page its clear you made the edit without discussion. You did not seek any consensus, ignored the current consensus and discussion and then posted an unsupported copyright message. Please be friendly and discuss with others before taking action as wikipedia has rules on this kind of thing. Thanks very much --Curuxz (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you are an administrator, so whatever your opinion you are not allowed to remove the copyvio warning. There is no problem with making an edit without discussion, however you will see that there is a discussion topic about this very issue. I think you need to make yourself more familiar with wikipedia policies and read tags before removing them, as it is considered vandalism. Verbal chat 12:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem from my end. As text was copied from the website, the issue arose and was correctly dealt with as you did, by posting a copyvio notice. There appears to be a positive outcome emerging - the GFDLing of the wessex website and clearance of a licence issue with the article, so that's all good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly let me apologize for removing the copyright notice I was under the false impression that anyone could remove one after copyright had been established.
As for your request to remove my comments I am afraid I am unable to do so without clarification:
Do you stand by that you first edited the page before any discussion on your part? (see edits of 14:19, 20 August 2008)
Do you stand by the assertion that the action of adding the section is in its self controversial? (see discussion, that there are no less than 3 sections of the talk page clearly labeled in relation to this issue)
Do you agree that that last comment prior to your edit was my own at 09:31 on the 4 June 2008 citing precedent in the other academic pages and that you did not add to this discussion or in any way make your intention to edit known prior to the editing of the 20th of August almost 3 months after discussion had ended in favor of not having this information there?
That when you did make a comment on the discussion page you say in your own words "I fully agree that the other "controversy", previously included, has been correctly removed." yet you still inserted your revised version with no discussion?
There was lots of discussion on this issue and my aim is not to insult you but merely to point out that you acted unilaterally which I hope you will agree based on the history is very clear. Instead of justifying why other institutions have no controversial material on their pages you chose to resource this material and repost it which is not an action of good faith. If I have somehow misinterpreted your actions I will be glad to apologize but I can not understand why you chose to ignore the discussion of others and the precedent of wikipedia? Please help me understand. This is in no way a personal attack I am simply reacting to your edits in the normal way following the rules of wikipedia regarding discussing edits first Regards --Curuxz (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is you keep stating that I have acted improperly by "unilaterally" adding the controversy. This is not improper, as I made changes to it first and added an expand tag. It is still currently referenced on other wikipedia pages. When it was removed I did not simply revert and edit war, which would be improper, but took the copy to the talk page and asked for input from all sides. The copyvio problem is totally unrelated. I would ask you again to remove your last comment from the WIT talk page. You have, on the other hand, acted improperly, although I am assuming you didn't realise that this was the case so I simply made you aware using standard warning templates. I used the templates so it could not be viewed as a personal attack. However, your comments in a section named after me that consistently refers to me have been attacking my editing. Please reconsider this and apologise on the talk page. I don't think this is a big deal, simply a misunderstanding, but your comments on the talk page have been needlessly combative and uncivil, and failed to assume good faith (always check yourself before accusing others of failing good faith!). I hope this can be put behind us. All the best. Verbal chat 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Why other institutions do not have controversies is a matter for their talk pages. I know of others that do, the university of turo medical school (sp?) for example. Whether this controversy is good for inclusion is a matter for consensus on the talk page. Looking at other pages rather than policy is a red herring. Verbal chat 14:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry Verbiage but you still seem to be missing the point, there was lots of discussion that agreed this section (in any form) had no place on the page not least because almost all other pages on academic institutions has this kind of material. Assuming you read this, were aware that there are massively controversial issues at other higher education facilities in the UK not mentioned on their wikipedia page and then went on to add the information again is what I am trying to understand? I agree the copyright issue is totally separate.
If you could please explain to me why you thought it was appropriate to edit the page before discussion then we can clear this up but otherwise the issue was dead and resolved and my starting a section about you was justified since it was you alone that had come into the page and decided to assert your new version against consensus and precedent. Please address why you did this first without simply calling it a personal attack and we maybe able to achieve a constructive and mutually agreeable outcome. Regards --Curuxz (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Using other pages as example IS policy, so why you think this is a red hearing I do not know, and I totally agree " Whether this controversy is good for inclusion is a matter for consensus on the talk page." so why did you make your edit before using the talk page??? Your disagreeing with your self and its confusing me. --Curuxz (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Using other pages as example of what can be included is fine, but not of what should be omitted. I have not contradicted myself; I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding. Plenty of other pages include "controversies". There is no problem with adding to a page and then discussing it after if called on it. The only occasions when you must do this is when the page is tagged as controversial or subject to special sanctions. I was called on my addition and then took it to the talk page, as is good and proper. I realise that you may be upset with your edits being called vandalism - but that is how your edits are properly categorised. Please do not take it out on me. I substantially changed the wording of the controversy section before adding it, including dropping a whole paragraph of ridiculous assertions and tagging it for improvement. In your continued mis-characterisations of my actions you are running afoul of several wikipedia policies (civil,agf,npa). However, you are a new editor and I don't really mind what you write on my talk page - although I will call you on it. Also, your naming of a section after me and refering to me is not justified, as it is wikipedia talk page policy (wp:talk) to discuss the edits and not the editor. What I do object to is your edits about me on article talk pages. Please remove your comments and apologise on the article talk page. Thanks. Verbal chat 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Why you continue to assume that I have become 'upset' with you I do not know it certainly does not follow good faith, I am being perfectly civil. You are still not addressing the issues at hand but instead trying to deflect them onto my style of writing. The fact remains you acting against consensus and have made no attempt to address this. There is absolutely no reason for re-including this section it was mooted and decided against, your motivation for pushing this issue is odd and while I can understand the copyright move I can not understand why you came from outside this page and made these edits against what had been discussed. Your initial comment "This controversy is well known in science publishing circles" well I have to say I had never herd of it (prior to it appearing on wikipedia) and I work in those circles so I wonder if you would be so kind as to clarify your interest in this matter as per WP:COI like I was quite reasonably asked to do. Thanks very much --Curuxz (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest. If your attacks continue, such as this, I will take this to administrators for resolution. I did not edit against consensus as my edit was a new one, not a revert. When it was removed I took it to the talk page. There is no more that needs to be said. Your obsessing over this matter lead me to believe you may be acting because I had upset you with the templates I left on your page, as you commented in an edit to another editor. I came to the page via some other scientific controversy articles on wikipedia that referenced this page. I did no "pushing" and your attempts to paint me as some kind of POV pusher are uncivil and silly. You might like to read [[wp:consensus] as you seem to think that a consensus, once established, can never be changed; however, I think there was no consensus before my edits, and there still isn't - the number of people involved is far too low. There is merely a discussion on the talk page. Again, the section I added was substantially different to that discussed. If new refs are found then the information may be reinserted in some form. Verbal chat 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that your reading of the talk page is wrong. There is no consensus for the controversy not to be included, only that it fails RS, which I agree with and is why it is mentioned on the talk page. My placing of the full text on the talk page was to prevent another innocent user from coming along and adding the material again without first finding adequate sources. Verbal chat 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Meat and Socks

Granted, anytime. But that was just in case someone did point out that Crohnie wasn't pointing out to "existing policy". Duh!--Ramdrake (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

See also

THanks. Smith Jones (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Browne

Yeah, that article gets loads of vandalism, hard to keep up (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Kaiwhakahaere

I agree with you! Kaiwhakahaere is very uneducated and kind of creepy, makes Wikipedia look very very bad. Chaos4tu (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for Wardrobe malfunction. You not only cleaned it up, but also showed me a way to improve the article further. Please, watch over the article. I plan to develop it a bit more. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I thought all the definitions and coincidentally related items were better out of the lead. It might be good to summaries the origins in the lead, and it's worldwide use (in England it's used as a euphemism for overreactions (à la the reaction of the FCC and American right!) Verbal chat 17:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

Received your warnings for placement of Category:Pseudoskeptic Target on Astrology and Paranormal, thank you. I will not re-apply them without consulting or discussing it with editors on the page(s) in question. This Tag has been CfD and you may be interested in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the CfD until after I'd started reverting you - although I now see you've told a lot of people about it. You might want to check WP:CANVASS. If you tag any more articles to your category or canvass for votes then you may well be blocked. Verbal chat
I understand. I'd like to pursue a different avenue at this point. are you familiar with the general layout of Wikipedia such that you an explain how searchable 'Village Pump' is for people who are trying to get systemic problems solved? I would like to somehow leave a searchable record of analysis before i depart Wikipedia and don't quite know the best place to put this other than my Talk Page or in places where it is likely to be effaced. Since you seem to have an actual interest in the quality of wikipedia, i thought perhaps you might help me with that by identifying the best spot to leave record of 'attempts to fix systemic problems about which you should know, before this wave of interested wikipedian left for other, more socially mature, wikis'. any suggestions? if you'd prefer to have this discussion on my Talk page feel free to move it there. :)-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite new here myself and haven't been to the village pump, although I'm aware of it. I think that the best thing would be to make an wp:essay in your userspace and then invite comment at the village pump and FTN, etc, but I don't know that much about wikipedia. My editing tends to be reactive. Verbal chat 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Electro Homeopathy

I've done some work on this page which is currently an AfD (and on which you commented). Nonsense though the science behind the topic almost certainly is, it does have some interesting history and might be saveable. Have a look at the rewrked page and see if you think there's the basis for an article there. thanks Brammarb (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll do so as soon as I have time - maybe tomorrow. Thanks Verbal chat 20:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I see you're doing Trojan work with Dr kundu's edits to this page. Is there an argument for leaving in the books (under 'reading') that aren't written by him. There are plenty of modern works on the subject, it's just that I have no idea which are the "good" ones. The portion of his input that is not obviously COI/advertisement might be worth keping? Brammarb (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Because of his editing, I think he'll have to justify future additions on the talk page. He's also generally making a mess of it, and keeps removing the reference tag. I agree this is a very fringe area, hence we should get the references check out. Discussion on the talk page and posting on Homeopathy and FTN might help. Also there's a guy called Peter morrell (talk · contribs) who knows a lot about the history of homeopathy. He edits on the Hahnemann page a lot and is a homeopathic historian, I think. He might have come across this before. Verbal chat 08:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh btw, you did good work getting the article to this state. It could do with some scientific review adding, but I have no idea who might have done any research into this. Verbal chat 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Great stuff. I haven't been able to find anything modern in terms of scientific papers (nothing in any of the major journals of complementary medicine, for example), but that's probably because it really is the fringe of a fringe, being a stew of homeopathy and holistic medicine. I suspect its notability lies not in its scientific relevance but in the facts that notwithstanding the lack of evidence, (a) it is still practised so widely and (b) in its early years it was significant enough to enter the medical historical record. Will get in touch with that guy but probably not for while. Real life beckons for a few days.Brammarb (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

never heard of this subject and I don't edit that topic any more in case you didn't notice! stick with your anti-homeopathy cronies & leave me alone. Peter morrell 09:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that trying to get up-to-date refs and/or a modern evidence base for the page is "anti-homeopathy". Oh well...we can see whether the page grows organically - there are enough practitioenrs out there so that some decent stuff will accrete to the page over time, with any luck. Thanks for the compliment above, by the way. It was surprisingly good fun to research. Brammarb (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Left a comment on the article talk page about ScienceApologist's new footnotes. Seem to me to belong in quackery and pseudoscience articles rather than in Electrohomeopathy, because they make broad points about non-medical medicine rather than specific points about the subject of the articles. Thoughts? Brammarb (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't be disruptive

In you eagerness to keep a certain information out from the lead you have shifted out all the definitions and left intact the most misleading definition on Wardrobe malfunction. Please, have a little more patience before jumping into action. Doggedness can be highly disruptive. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this was disruptive. None of that material should be in the lead, so whoever put it back is the guilty party - although it's hardly disruption. I'm sorry if I missed a poor definition. Verbal chat 10:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you asked ...

Can you please state the name of your account(s)? Thanks. Verbal chat 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, my name is catherine yronwode. i am catherine at yronwode dot com and my user name at Wikipedia is is Catherineyronwode. I don't always use the log-in for a variety of reasons -- i have low vision and the log-in area is too far away on my screen to locate easily, i'm lazy, i kinda like to see how people treat perceived "newbies" with IP addresses (pretty rudely, if the truth be told), and i'm the subject of a BLP here at Wikipedia and the IP address cuts down on the sort of trash that afflicts the talk pages of BLP folks. My husband nagasiva yronwode and i have 9 computers on a network and although he very rarely edits, i am a fairly consistent editor here and have been for a number of years. You'll find edits by me at the user logs 64.142.90.32 , 64.142.90.33 , 64.142.90.34 -- and maybe more in that string. It depends on which machine i am logged into. That's why i call myself "64." I usually do sign my name as well, at least if i am entering into discussions rather than just editing. I have no main areas of interest, being a generalist, but i tend to defend minority religions and cultures against hostile attacks and deletions by co-conspiring cabals of atheists and racists. Other than that i edit all over the map: New Tought, hippie movement, obscure diseases, pre-WWII rural acoustic blues and country music, occultism, Spiritualism, dog breeds, folklore, history, celebrities, political events -- whatever. I don't "own" any pages but i do defend many pages against deletion by the Randi-Dawkins-ites. I am on the board of directors of YIPPIE, the Yronwode Institution for the Preservation and Popularization of Indigenous Ethnomagicology. I am a pastor in a small church (actually the World's Smallest Church, not listed in Wikipedia (but it ought to be) and online at missionaryindependent dot org. I write and edit books. You can look them up at Amazon. I collect fortune-telling teacups (the old ones, from pre-WWI) and good luck charms and talismans from all eras and all cultures, many of which are online at my Lucky W Amulet Archive web site. I am 61 years old. My sun-sign is Taurus. My husband and i met hrough the Usenet. We have been together for 10 years. We live in an old farmhouse about 90 minutes north of San Francisco. We have a Portuguese Water Dog. Hope this helps! cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your response - but all I was after was a link from your IP to your named account. There are "alternate account" templates. Would you like me to add on to your IP and account? It'll stop accusations of socking or meatpuppeting with self-ref, hopefully. Some editors might get annoyed if you fail to log in, but with these tags that problem should be ameliorated. I try to be nice to IPs, but when they make large changes leaving no edit summary, or turn up on policy pages, that gets a bit much sometimes - I'm not accusing you of this. All the best. Verbal chat 11:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i saw that you left that template at my talk page, but i didn't like the image, and so i just ran it as text. People have accused my husband and me of being the same person for 10 years now -- first in usenet, then in DMOZ/ODP, and now here. We're used to it. It's understandable that folks get confused. We don't sock each other, though, and he *always* remembers to log in (he's a lot more techie than i am), so, basically, if it's an anon IP, it's going to be me. Anyway, i thank you for your interest. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It's more so that people can contact you on your talk page directly. No problem. Verbal chat 09:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Said's book

is almost certainly notable. The thing to do with an incomplete article like that is to try to add references to book reviews and the like, not nominate it for deletion--Iwould suggest that you only nominate it at afd if you cannot find them DGG (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

BCES Powerlines Controversy

If you have no further objections to it, I will re-add the section on the power-lines controversy at Bridlewood Community Elementary School. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See the article talk page. You need to justify it with reliable sources. Unless you've done that I have objections. Verbal chat 13:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lakinekaki

Hi Verbal, regarding this edit, you may want to look over this first. It's starting to get interesting. BTW, I tried to get in touch with you earlier because I saw you had a history with Laki, but your page was in the middle of usurpation and I wasn't sure where would be the best place to post. When Jehochman stepped in, I thought it would be taken care of, but now Laki says "don't think it will end in one or two days." [10] NJGW (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Awww, I thought that this was one of our 'I do not like WP:V, goodbye' editors. Oh well. Welcome to your new username. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks. I hadn't realised the IP was the same guy, it looked like a vandal. I just saw a revert of a good editor introducing swearing on a watchlisted page, so I reverted to the clean version. If he logged in then this wouldn't happen - but it should still be removed. I was unaware of the discussion in which I was mentioned, as I assumed this editor had gone or become productive. If I'm being talked about then I must be doing something right :) All the best Verbal chat 07:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Verbal, regarding the removal of the D-Link violations content, apologies, just seen your messages and completely take into account your feedback. I'll ensure that i adhere to these guidelines in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamclatworthy (talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I hope I haven't scared you off. Verbal chat 14:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thunderstorms

I was reading this article and noticed someone had replaced "density" with "fuck you", so I put it back, but I looked on the history page and you have flagged my edit as vandalism. Why is this, so I can avoid offending anyone with any alterations next time? I appreciate not being logged in at the time and only being an IP address makes me look a bit suspect but I had best of intentions.

Thanks Mrpsb (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If Verbal will forgive me for treating this page like WP:AN/K while (I think) they are probably asleep, that mistake almost certainly resulted from scrolling through the history and hitting the wrong button by accident. The revert was itself reverted in a further 36 seconds. Basically, do not stress about it - you did good, and Verbal made and quickly corrected an honest mistake. Happy editing. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi thanks for bringing your concern here. I'm not sure exactly what went wrong there, I used the vandal tools in TW and after clicking "revert vandal" it hung for several minutes. Rather stupidly I pressed refresh (probably the mistake) which seemed to make it revert want to revert your edit (I guess), and only seeing the IP I assumed it was still the right edit. However, I was a bit worried and immediately realised me mistake and reverted to the last good version before the vandalism. Sorry to have annoyed you with my mistake. Sometimes these buttons don't do exactly what you'd expect. I didn't leave a note on your talk page as you weren't logged in. As Eldreft says, I have in fact been asleep :) I can make a dummy edit apology if you wish? All the best. Verbal chat 06:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Race and crime

I have nominated Race and crime for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. NJGW (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

3R Rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. I don't generally like to do this, preferring to settle differences in talk, but with false bad faith accusations of vandalism I'm making an exception. Zzmang (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but as I already warned you I think that makes me automatically notified. I've asked for the page to be protected. Verbal chat 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest, clearly including statistics in an article isn't WP:VAND so why make that accusation? Zzmang (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts, and without interpretation they are not adding to the encyclopaedia and appear to have a racist overtone. None of that is welcome on wikipedia (I agree that WP is not censored btw, that is a silly argument - I realise you haven't made it, but I thought I'd say in case you did) Verbal chat 15:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that the statistics are not ideal, tables should be used and they need to be interpreted by a verifiable source. However, I think that the statistics should be improved rather than deleted. Your accusation of vandalism was baseless, and like I said I wouldn't have reported you for violating 3R were it not for leaving your last revision summary saying my changes were identified as vandalism. WP:VAND#NOT
If you are concerned about racist overtones, whatever you actually mean by racism (I'm not being flippant by that : some people think environmental explanations aren't racist, while any genetic explanations are racist, while others think any identification of any connection between race and crime is racist), I think it would be better if you found some studies to add that could do the job of interpreting the statistics and putting them into theoretical context. Zzmang (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of Twinkle

Hello. I declined the 3RR report file against you at WP:AN3. However, in the interests of peace, harmony and WP:AGF, could I ask you not to use Twinkle to label as vandalism edits which are clearly not. (Examples: [11] [12]) When reverting good-faith edits it is best not to use an automatically generated edit summary at all. CIreland (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted, although I feel the two edits you chose as examples are vandalism in the sense that they are not good for the project, and they do meet one or two of the criteria. I agree that leaving a more informative edit summary will always help. It would be good if the vandalism option would also prompt for a possible summary. From now on the rollback and rollback (agf) will be utilised more. Verbal chat 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent dialogue on EMFs and Health article

Just wanted to say (again) that dispute some fairly strong differences in opinion, I really appreciate the way you (/we) have worked on the discussion page within the article. I think we have both made our points of view reasonably articulately, and will side happily with the consensus of discussion from external parties, regardless of personal agreement (or lack of!) Topazg (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Sylvia Browne

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Sylvia Browne. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Bob (QaBob) 12:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking to a transcript is libellous? I think you need to check again. I note you haven't removed any "libellous" text. You've also got the articles mixed up. Verbal chat 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Private Eye

As I said in my edit summary, there are very few references in this article. Only the sections on litigation and the Paul Foot award are well-cited. The vast remainer of the article is unsupported statements, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of publishing citations so that facts can be verified. It is therefore for editors of this article to justify taking down the refimprove tag. Millstream3 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

G Therapy article

Thank you for your welcome and comments on my entry in the cerebral palsy page. The article was meant to create information on the interesting research at www.g-therapy.org on patients with brain and neurodevelopmental disorders for which very little treatment exists. The website presents several press articles on G Therapy and also a link to a G Therapy Support Group founded and monitored by British parents with over 600 members over 9 years sharing their experiences with G Therapy (hxxp://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/g-therapy/). Since I am a new user, I would be very thankful if you could perhaps suggest some other way to present the information. Best wishes, Althealth (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Published peer reviewed articles are good, even better are meta-analysis or reports by the Cochrane Collaboration. The point of wikipedia isn't to report the latest developments or the cutting-edge - it's an encyclopaedia. There is also the problem that you claim it is homeopathic, as there is no convincing evidence that homeopathic treatments are effective beyond the placebo effect. You'd need a very strong case to present a homeopathic preparation as effective. Also, if you are related to the clinic or treatment in question you should probably look at our conflict of interest rules. I'm afraid I can't see any way in which this material could be included without many more sources being provided. If you think you have good sources, please post them here - or (better) on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, where more people can get involved. All the best, Verbal chat 11:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

I'm working on the article; red links will disappear soon. Please leave as is. Thanks for your understanding KVDP (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, please justify your edits before proceeding on the talk page. The lead is not the place for a list. Verbal chat 12:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not intent to set up a list, but all systems need to be mentioned in order for the article to be complete no ? If you don't like it, than keep some common examples and add a list in the wikitable next to the text. I only want to make the article complete here; which is btw also the reason why i removed the Afd and (will continue to do so), lets not play cat and mouse here and try to work alongside me, rather than against. For example, try to search some verification online trough google to accompany my 'claims'. The info is from the book "complementary medicine for dummies", so it's correct and no gibberish.
The authority of your source is debatable. Also, discuss further changes on the talk page. Please stop creating new articles that are merely lists that could be better dealt with in the alternative medicine page. The lead is definitely not the place for lists of the sort you keep adding. You need to justify your actions on the talk page now, please, and wait for a consensus. You can even draft the changes you want to make there. You also included several things multiple times, sometimes under different names, and used incorrect names. Verbal chat 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

This was removed by Firefly322 (talk · contribs) - here for archive

Your recent tagging of [13] are just making a mess of wikipedia and are obviously WP:POINTy edits. Such a tag editorial tag just clutters up a decent article. And your behavior here calls into question your other edits to wikipedia, making them appear, at least to me, sort of seamy and sordid. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk already, which is the appropriate place for this discussion. Please retract your WP:POINT accusation or justify it. And the second sentence is a personal attack - remove it immediately, please. If you have problems with my edits, discuss them on the article talk page. By being so confrontational you are escalating the cituation and being very uncivil. Verbal chat 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick reply

Saw your note on my talk page - I have been out of the country for a couple of days. My comment about "not helping yourself" was a very simple way of saying that I believed the other party had given themselves enough rope now, the case/point had been made, we're heading to closure so there was no need to continue the argument, as that's when it starts making you look bad :-) BMW(drive) 10:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Thanks for the reply. Verbal chat 10:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Noise (music) revert

Hello Verbal, you have reverted a page that is under dispute please read the following:

Despite a protracted dispute with Valueyou leading to intervention of multiple editors, Valueyou's immediate action, following the conclusion of this period of disruption, was to revert the disputed article to a condition that Valueyou deemed acceptable, therefore leaving outstanding issues with WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:SYN, unaddressed. The dispute esentially relates to disagreement about tagging and to Semitransgenic's request for citations. The origin of this dispute can be traced to here. The user engaged in WP:CANVASS by copy pasting a personal attack across the talk pages of multiple articles user Semitransgenic has edited. There is also evidence of Valueyou accusing Semitransgenic of anti-semitism, resulting in Valueyou attempting to canvass ברוקולי. This last allegation arose as a result of the statement made here at 17:42 on the 10th of August. Irrespective of the nature of this hostile campaign Semitransgenic attempted to arrive at a truce but Valueyou's repsonse was instead to engage in antagonistic reversion. Please advise. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I requested page numbers on multiple occasions so that I can check the cites, the content is problematic and there is evidence of synthesis. The references cannot be checked without page numbers, that is why the banner WP:OR banner was in place, and that is why it is in my view not simply a question of placing check tags where problematic cites exist. If you have specific policy that addresses this please provide me with the relevant passage so that I confirm your actions are correct. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I thought you had done a straight revert, but I see now that you placed verification tags throughout, I can see how this is potentially a more constructive approach, but if you have time please comment on the question I aksed above. Thanks! Semitransgenic (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi I'll look later - I thought having the refs where they could be seen so they could be checked might help. Thanks for acknowledging this. Ugh - and sorry for all the typos in my edit summary :s Verbal chat 12:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Podiatry

Hello Verbal:

Thank you for the kind welcome to wikipedia.

You stated that my facts may be true but needed sourcing. Please indicate which of the facts that I mentioned in the edit are in dire need of sourcing.

Kind Regards,

Orthopodiatrust —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthopodiatrust (talk • contribs) 04:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your edit was that you marked it as minor, with the edit summary "grammar", when you actually changed the content from "Other qualifications which allow the use of this term are those issued by the Institute of Chiropodists and Podiatrists or the Smae Institute." to "The DPM, however, is the true gold standard in the context of international "Podiatry" education. . " This is a problem as the summary was misleading on two accounts: 1, it wasn't minor as you removed text and added new text; 2, you actually made the grammar worse and the summary didn't justify the removal and the addition you made. You need to justify, on the talk page probably, why you think the first sentence should be removed, and you need to find a reliable source for the gold standard claim. There is no "dire need", we're in no rush. It was the gold standard claim that I referred to in my edit summary. Verbal chat 06:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Also "This is due to the obvious and significant difference in education and training. It is hoped that the USA ban against Australian "podiatry" school graduates may be lifted by the year 2025. " needs sourcing, and note that wikipedia in not a crystal ball. Verbal chat 06:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hey there, you left a message on my page asking if I had email enabled, you can get in touch with me at andrew [at] andrew.ms. aleahey (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I might not get around to it until tomorrow. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Functional Medicine

Hi,

I received a message from you and I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know if there is a better way to reply. I work for Dr. Bland (I manage Dr. Bland's publications and personal website). Dr. Bland and I looked at the Wikipedia listing for Functional Medicine and are interested in seeing it avoid deletion because it is a valid discipline and there is a lot of supportive material. I would like to contribute, but I looked at the guidelines and it looks like both of us (myself--as an employee and Dr. Bland--as a subject, would have a conflict of interest as editors). I have also previously worked for the Institute for Functional Medicine, which is also mentioned in the article. Can you advise how we can support this article? Dr. Bland has posted a message on his blog encouraging functional medicine supporters to contribute to the article.--SynthesisbyJBland (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Well, my advise would be not to edit the article directly except to revert obvious vandalism. If you want to suggest edits, improvements, additions, references, etc you can join in on the talk page instead. Make sure you have reliable sources for your suggestions (eg, not self published). Feel free to edit articles not related to FM/IFM/Bland without worrying about CoI (within reason - adding references to FM on the medicine article is also a possible CoI). I'd also suggest you change your username to something that doesn't mention Bland or FM, as you might fall foul of the username policy and be blocked. You can change your name at WP:RENAME - it's really easy and I can help you if you like. Also feel free to ask me questions, or ask directly at the conflict of interest noticeboard. The idea here is to have a balanced article, not an advertisement or an attack piece. So we can have the claims for FM, any evidence for them, and scientific evaluations. Asking for supporters to edit the page is, I think, frowned upon - unless it's done in a neutral way (ie, not "edit it to make us look good, remove all criticism", but "there is a wikipedia page - please contribute to make it better!" (I haven't seen the blog post you're referring to, by the way, so I don't know how it was worded). A final idea would be to declare your CoI on your userpage - just say "I work for Dr Bland, expert in functional medicine" or some such. Please feel free to ask any more questions, or come to me with ideas. The point is you can contribute, and having someone with inside knowledge can be a great resource, but you have to be a bit more careful. Sorry this is a bit of a ramble, I'm in a hurry but I thought you should get a reply. If you want further advice I'd also suggest talking to either User:MastCell, User:Jehochman, User:Elonka, or User:Dougweller - all admins and all very clever people (there are many many more). Yours, Verbal chat 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
See also WP:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) Verbal chat 19:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have submitted a name change request (I thought I was helping avoid a CoI situation by being specific with the name rather than trying to conceal anything). The blog post can be viewed at www.jeffreybland.com. It's very neutral, I think (just letting the functional medicine community know the article is out there if they want to contribute). If there is any problem with it we can take it down or revise it. I appreciate the help. I ordered a book over the weekend about Wikipedia. This whole experience has me intrigued and I just might start editing myself (things that have nothing to do with FM).SynthesisbyJBland (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well welcome to wikipedia, and please do ask me anything - I'll try to be more concise in future! Verbal chat 17:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

TeamViewer

Verbal, thanks for the great assistance! Altalavista —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altalavista (talk • contribs) 08:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Point taken. I apologise unreservedly for this slip in my own morale and hereby strike out the offending text. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, all the best. Verbal chat 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just been on the road for 11 hours (well, trains) so will look tomorrow. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Verbal/Archive_1&oldid=1142705996"