User talk:77.167.212.162

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Samuel Hahnemann (talk page)[edit]

Please see wp:OUTING. While it may seem obvious, we still don't do that. Further, it always remains possible that the wp user is not the same person, just using the real person's name here as a pseudonym. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You are probably correct. This seems the way WP is administered, something I have not kept up with. In my defence I would like to state that no personal harm was meant. Wether this user is actually the named person, a sympathizer or an opponent is a moot point. Using a particular name can be seen as a bias, this was the only thing I wished to point out. A talk page used to be the place where you you could discuss the content of an article. No personal attack was meant. The remaining remarks are relevant as stated. 77.167.212.162 19:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The simple principle is that we discuss edits, not editors, on article talkpages. Issues with the editors' behaviour go elsewhere. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me start by saying why I stopped contributing and editing in the Wikipedia. Generally I would try to contribute in areas in which I have expertisse. This sometimes lead to conflicts with other editors, usually on an emotional rather than a factual level. Some of these editors were well versed in the rule book (the MOS is probably still around) and usually pointed a specific rule out to me. Although I used to be reasonably well versed in the essays concerning etiquette, I got bored with haggling over the interpretation of certain rules and how they should be applied, it was my intention to contribute. In the edit you redacted I hope you will have noted that it was not meant as a personal attack. Also it only meant to illustrate that certain edits may be done with a bias (in my opinion this is discussing the edit and not the editor). But you have a job to do and I will not take up any more of your time. Occasionally I read things in Wikipedia which are blatantly wrong (in my opinion), sometimes I cannot control the urge to have my say. 77.167.212.162 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
As an afterthought you may find this website amusing: How does homeopathy work?, or not. It is not my opinion, just something somebody put up, they are clearly expressing an opinion. So I will not add it to any Wikipedia article. 77.167.212.162 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Magnus-Allcroft[edit]

Thanks for your expansion to Magnus-Allcroft's article. I've left a note on Talk:Golders Green Jewish Cemetery about his entry there; his entry in the ODNB doesn't mention a burial site, and I'm not immediately sure where else to look, but if you know for certain then please do reinstate it! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Just saying Hi[edit]

Well I was going to drop you a note suggesting you create an account but... I see you've already been through all that. Sorry you've found your previous Wiki-experiences less than fulfilling but I do hope you stick around and help keep our medicine articles well-sourced and evidence-based. Zad68 18:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What not may be apparent is that I am a scientist, so I have learned not to be lead by emotion, but rather by evidence. This does not seem to be the right place for me. It is my honest wish that people will not suffer from what they read here. One of the obligations that some editors seem to forget, is that writing something that may be true for one person can seriously harm another. This is why I believe in evidence based medicine. I am not against natural medicine (after all acetylsalicylic acid is a modified form of Salix alba extract). Nor am I against a holistic approach, if there is proof that it works. But healthcare suggests that we care about health. 77.167.212.162 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes it really does seem that genuine real-world experts have the hardest time editing Wikipedia on the subjects they know the most about. The best that you can ask for is for Wikipedia articles to use the best available sources and to represent them accurately. If you see something that needs fixing or updating and you're having trouble getting it done at the article yourself, feel free to drop a note at WT:MEDICINE, the Wikipedia Medicine project is one of the most active and helpful here. Or feel free to drop me a note directly at my User Talk page and I'll help take a look at it. Zad68 18:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"reflist-talk"[edit]

Hey I see you're one of the few editors who actually discusses content and sources on article Talk pages. Here's a secret template: {{reflist-talk}}. Use that on an article Talk page instead of {{reflist}}. Happy editing... Zad68 18:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Being an acedemic I believe that one of the ways to achieve new insights is to discuss it first (on a talk page) before consensus is formed. Wikipedia would like a worldwide audience. That is a great responsability. Having an opinion is different from a point of view (which WP does not allow, but it seems to be difficult in making a distinction, but that seems to be the nature of the beast). 77.167.212.162 (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)