User talk:Martinphi

Chiropractic

It was not my intention to mischaracterize your edit history over at the Chiropractic RfC. I think I was counting your edits to Reiki as CAM-related since I have myself not spent much time at the historical or sociological sections of that article. If you would like, I can redact that part of my comment. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - things have a way of not fitting neatly into our nice little boxes without spilling over one way or another. :) - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was an NPOV violation. Your edit summary was: "I do not know the content of this edit. I do know that it is significantly different, and has no consensus. Thus, please form consensus on the talk page first" You reverted without reviewing the content or sources. Please do not blindly revert without reviewing the material first. QuackGuru 01:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the summary, and I an another editor said on the talk page, that is a contentious article, and you should form consensus before edit warring changes in. NPOV is not important in the short run, and is anyway a matter of opinion of editors. If that version violates NPOV, then form a consensus for a better version, and put it in only with consensus. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not important? NPOV is very important. You reverted without reviewing the material. Please stop. QuackGuru 02:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remove this tag from the article and stop misusing my comments. QuackGuru 02:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi wrote in part: "NPOV is not important in the short run" Martinphi seems to have acknowledged that his edit was a WP:POVPUSH. Martinphi, NPOV is always important. Please consider improving on the edit rather than reverting material against WP:NPOV. Please respect NPOV. QuackGuru 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. You really need to form consensus before edit warring changes in. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not specifically disputed anything and you do realize your edit was in direct violation of NPOV. Am I right? QuackGuru 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is a matter of editorial opinion. Wikipeida works by consensus. Thus, you need to get the consensus of others to find NPOV, or else in an extreme situation go through the dispute resolution process. But don't edit war changes in. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that Martinphi has no specifc objections to the NPOV improvements based on NPOV. Martinphi did revert obvious NPOV improvements. Martinphi reverted without reviewing the content. Martinphi has not disputed any specific content. QuackGuru 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather think that if you are attempting to set me up for a sanction you should review your own editing behavior. Edit warring on a controversial article doesn't look good, especially when other editors were asking you not to before hand. Why not ask for mediation if you are so upset at the POV condition? I put a POV tag on the article to address your concerns. My position is that any change made without consensus is not a good idea on that article. And, I think you need to ask for mediation. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you do not mention the website of a Wikipedian. It is getting close to outing. I hope you will redact your comment. QuackGuru 05:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Please redact your comments and remove the links. You could get indef-blocked. QuackGuru 06:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh. I'll take out the links, because they might -might- violate the letter of policy, if not the spirit. The comment is only a mention, and does not reveal any personal information which is not already in his ArbCom- which is public information already posted on Wikipedia. Come to think of it, per your suggestion, I'll also change the post to be only the information already in WP. Thanks (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Martin. As you can see from the yellow bar on this page, the ArbComs took this matter very seriously and are hiding it from public view, and it should be kept that way. That stuff was mostly from before I started editing here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed it to only what is in the ArbCom, which is the decision, not the evidence page which is only available through the history. I have no intent to bash you, I'm merely talking about the POVs which are there on that chiro page, which I believe are making it generally difficult for the article to settle down. I think your POV on alt med is generally right, though maybe not always. I do rather think what I posted is public information, even the links I posted and then took out. I would not have posted any of it thinking I was revealing something not already well known. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much of an "activist" anymore, as I haven't updated my site for a long time (no access) and I've dropped out of other activities, such as discussion lists. I'm just getting too tired and old for it. So that stuff is pretty stale, even though it is still a resource for some people. I just like to keep my Wikipedia activities and my other activities separate, and that applies to my editing as well. While we all have various POV in real life, they should be subordinated to Wikipedia policies while we are here, and thus our real life affiliations should not be used against us here, and in fact that is specifically listed as a personal attack in the WP:NPA policy: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." That's why (during the CorticoSpinal blocking), even though he did something that outed me, I didn't mention his real name (although it's readily available here), or his address, or his office, or any such private information. It can easily be found, but it would be an unfair personal attack that blended real life information with his wiki identity. I think it's best that we all treat each other as Wikipedians, and respect each other's privacy. Even your identity is readily available, but you won't see me using it against you. -- Fyslee / talk 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the mention of you out completely if you like, though I don't think it was news to anyone there. Or you should feel free to do it yourself, because I'm going to bed. It was just a convenient example which I happened to know about (and I didn't expect the great big reaction, which merely had the effect of making me do a lot of research on you, which I wouldn't otherwise have done... Never saw that evidence page before tonight. Heh). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you choose to do it, I'd appreciate it. It does nothing to help me or the discussion. The point can be made without using me as an example. There are plenty of very notable persons and websites to mention. -- Fyslee / talk 06:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are? Really? Editing that article? Well, I wouldn't doubt it. Hey..... you just revealed personal info! ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm talking about publically known websites by non Wikipedians. -- Fyslee / talk 06:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed the "editing that article" bit. No, I don't know of any other editors at Wikipedia (besides Barrett, who doesn't edit) who have such websites. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, well I don't know of any. COI is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just about edits.

In the case of chiro I really think the push to have it all put under fringe was probably misguided. What needs to be done is that there should be a thorough explication of the difference between what is accepted in mainstream medical practice, and what is considered fringe, and quackery if practiced in certain ways. Eubulides said the same thing, that it isn't all quackery, or at least is not considered so. So just make the distinction clear, and let the mainstream part breathe a bit. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the fringe push. You may have noticed that I didn't participate in the discussion to any real degree, if at all. Partially because I didn't follow it, and partially because I didn't have the time and was busy with other things. Chiropractic is a funny blend of fringe practices and beliefs, associated with manipulative therapies that have their place, just not to the degree as believed by most DCs. It is also dominated by a huge majority of DCs who were educated before EBM began to make its inroads in chiropractic. It tolerates many forms of fraud and quackery because of its historical development, and because BJ Palmer was himself a big conman and scammer. He invented many dubious quack devices. He learned some of his trickery and marketing skills as a young man working with magicians in the circus, was a "wharf rat" and got kicked out of school, and was generally a problematic child for his father. They were true enemies most of their lives, leaving BJ in control of the profession and living as a multimillionaire, while his father died a poor outcast from the profession. A rather tragic ending for DD. -- Fyslee / talk 01:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there's got to be a great book in there, I'm sure it's been written by someone. Any idea of how the mainstream part (where I assume chiro is going) can be made seperate in the article from where it's been coming from and still is to whatever extent? I think the chiros at the article are pretty unhappy with the fringe stuff themselves since it gives them a bad name, but also want the good stuff to be treated well in context. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, there are many books about the very fascinating chiropractic profession and its history. I've studied it and followed it for years and get my information from chiropractors, and have several as close personal friends. To get a better understanding of it, here are some good places to start:

• Joseph C. Keating's "History of Chiropractic" Archive - Keating's eulogy
• The Lerner Report: A History of the Early Years of Chiropractic
• Chirobase - The largest chiropractic database (not research). It's primarily skeptical, but has massive amounts of other (neutral) documents and historical materials.
• Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism with the Update statement
• Inside Chiropractic: A Patient's Guide
• Adjusting the Joints - PBS
• Adjusting the Joints: Video - PBS

There is a movement in the right direction that is in conflict with where the profession is now and the way it is practiced by very large numbers of chiropractors. There is no definitive way of defining a "progressive" or "modern" chiropractor, since it's such a mixed bag, and such definitions are often wishful thinking (OR crystal ball) written from only one POV that ignores the realities. Right now what Forrest Gump said about filled chocolates still applies to the profession: "A chiropractic office is like a box of chocolates: YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET!" The job for the article editors is to tell the whole story, good and bad, facts and opinions, without whitewashing. That demands collaborative editing designed to produce the best article on the subject ever written. All existing articles suffer from being written primarily from one or the other POV. That's okay elsewhere, but NPOV requires coverage of all POV. -- Fyslee / talk 05:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheldrake RfC

Perhaps you could look at and comment on the RfC at the Sheldrake talk page and the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard? I wonder whether these issues have been raised about these journals (Rivista and JSPR) and reliable sources in general, in your experience. It would seem they would have been dealt with elsewhere, but I don't know where. Merci, EPadmirateur (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Arb stuff

Arb votes are a straight majority of the arbs that are active at the time the case is closed. As for time limits, they are generally clear on that in the ruling in some fashion. If they don't specify a time limit (like "restricted for one year"), it is PROBABLY indefinite, but to be sure, you'd have to refer me to a specific case so I read the ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To note

Please see User talk:Vassyana#User:QuackGuru. Vassyana (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

wikibreak

I'm going on a wikibreak for 3 days for RL stuff, so I can't help. Sorry! --Enric Naval (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Be aware you are restricted

See User talk:Vassyana#A user you have dealt with previously and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MartinPhi restricted. Enough already. Vassyana (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing at AN/I. My talk page history is intact and easily accessible. Please do not restore the section. If you or anyone else has a message specifically for me, my talk page is perfectly open. Thanks for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

By the by, I went ahead and fixed your links so they still link to an unblanked version of my talk page, for your convenience and that of anyone following the AN/I thread. Vassyana (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Ca.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ca.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to do a proper screenshot of how the template would have appeared on the original target page, since the page name is getting transcluded or whatever you want to call it. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

vandalism?

Calling this good-faith edit "vandalism"^[1] was totally unnecessary. Incidentally, displaying such an attitude undermines the credibility of your evidence. Imho. dorftrottel (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I said it looked like it, and for two reasons: first, it was an IP with only a single edit. Second, it destroyed my evidence section, so that it no longer did what I wanted it to. So it looked just like what an IP vandal would do. Just because it happens that it had a reason -as I saw later- doesn't really mean it didn't look like it. People call edits like that vandalism all the time, and once in a while we make a mistake. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind then. Sorry if my posting came across as too aggressive or defensive of the IP, but their good contribs and comments to the case have been fully valid throughout. And you're right, you said 'appears to be'. It's sad that Wikipedia culture hasn't established a shorthand for a inadvertently fucking up, e.g. inadvandalism. dorftrottel (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, inadvandalism, that's pretty good. I would have taken it back if it hadn't been an edit summary. I thought at the time it was vandalism. But shouldn't have said it, of course. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks a lot for your contributions to Chiropractic. I just read your FAQ about your editing style and found it very interesting. I also tend to go to articles where there's controversy. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Woo-hoo, page unprotected! I wikilinked "vitalism" and "materialism" and deleted your "clarifyme" tag, hoping the wikilinks would provide enough clarification. Note my "self-revert policy" i.e. feel free to ask me to revert my own edits and I might.

On the talk page, I have a draft shortened lead: Talk:Chiropractic#Lead Rewrite 2. I'm not sure if I can easily figure out what you did and how those changes would apply to the shortened version. I think maybe none of the changes you did would apply to the shortened version. You might want to have a look and see if you see anything I missed: possibly something around where it says "develop and carry out a comprehensive..." re your diff. In the draft shortened lead, the entire second paragraph is simply "A chiropractor usually has a first professional degree and can develop and carry out a comprehensive treatment and management plan that can include spinal adjustments, soft tissue therapy, prescription of exercises, and health and lifestyle counseling."(+ refs) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

If it was unprotected, I could edit it. That insane Arbcom restriction never passed.
Kww (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thread closing

Please note: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Closing. Vassyana (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of ArbCom restrictions

Removal of sourced information, regardless of source bias, without discussion or explanation may be considered disruptive and a violation of your ArbCom restriction.[2] Communication via edit summary is not sufficient. Further actions of this sort will result in article bans, per your restriction. Vassyana (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit is similarly unacceptable.[3] Removing sourced information solely on claims of bias without any discussion or explanation for the edit is deeply problematic under your restrictions in the context of your history. Vassyana (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please also see this ANI discussion. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I misread the diff. Sorry for that. The first is still problematic for the reasons stated. You are not prohibited from editing the articles. However, some accompanying discussion is needed for such edits. Vassyana (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll explain on the talk page next time. Thanks (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. It is appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sheldrake

Hi Martin, could I ask you to comment on the positioning of the paragraph from Carroll's Skeptic's Dictionary in Rupert Sheldrake? The related discussion is here. I am afraid I can't quite follow the reasoning of my interlocutor. Perhaps I am missing something. Thanks. (Responding to your edit summary, I would agree that the statement should be attributed to Carroll.) Best, --Jayen466 10:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kubler-Ross

The sexy seance info also appeared in Time magazine. The stuff about the attacks on her clinics was already here in the Ross entry. This is unfamilar to me, but I let it stay. Maybe somebody knows what they are talking about. (Maybe) I showed the Time article to my jesuit teacher, Father Kelly at University of Detroit. I sat in on his class called "Death and Resurrection." Kubler-Ross's stuff was very popular back then. (It isn't now. She goofed.) He was astonished. Of course this is old stuff to me. Kubler-Ross at that time was known as the Queen of Death. She went off the deep end. When you play with fire expect to get burnt. The loss of a loved one is a numbing experience. The heart ache cannot be known except by experience. The recent loss of my wife has taught me about how deep heart ache can be. NEVERMORE. (maybe) A bit on Sheldrake. How in the world are you going to know you have blocked out all of the keen senses of a dog except ESP? I have known blind people who could indentify others by listening to their approaching steps, which other people could not hear. What a kook! I disagree with you. This balderdash is not funny. Why won't others listen to wise old guard magicians? This has been our stomping ground for centuries. It is the same stuff over and over. I guess each new generation must learn for themselves, because they sure as hell will not listen to the rational records of the past. What a waste of time and research money, especially when you give it to quacks and wackos for very peculiar experiments. Picking up an M & M? Using your mind to enhance a chocolate bar? Bending spoons? Talking to the dead! Give me a break! Kazuba (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I would like to archive my talk page but I can not figure out this stuff. Help!

Derren Brown

At the bottom of my user page, External Links etc. I have a two part link to Derren Brown's Newspaper Prediction from his show in England. Brown is very hot right now. Check it out. Kazuba (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Check out the music intro and delightsKazuba (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:RV

Well, the discussion at WT:FRINGE is still ongoing, and there is a good chance that it will close as "no consensus". Please don't dismiss current sections of guidelines just because you think they are wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"it has reversed meaning", more like "several editors have edit-warred to change the standing version until the page had to be fully-protected" :)

I suggest you wait until the RfC on the particular attribution section ends or there is a clear consensus for removing it, instead of claiming that it has no consensus and use that to not follow it. I don't think that's good for writting on a collaborative manner, and it undermines the idea of having guidelines ruled by consensus on the first place. And most certainly it doesn't help into having estable articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Martin, if this was an anti-consensus version that never had consensus and that had been edit warred into the guideline, then you wouldn't need to open a RfC to get the section removed. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I finally finished writing a long analyis of a change you made to the article [4]. Gonna take a rest of this article for today and go do other things. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Meh, I couldn't resist adding another comment because I didn't like the answer I had made there (the edit conflict had caused my reply to be out of order on the thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Stirring the hornet nest

[5][6] [:Template:Disputedtag|See the "note" here]. It's fairly much common sense and as you are under a disruption parole, you should stay far away from actions like that. Additionally, I have deleted the new template as a housekeeping action, as the tag linked above may be used for sections (ala {{Disputedtag|section=yes}}). However, I would again strongly encourage you to stay far away from actions that are likely to be controversial and/or edit-war sparking (as were both the case in the above action). Regardless of your good intent, if you push in this kind of direction in the future, I will respond to it with a topic ban under your restrictions. Vassyana (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

You are banned from remote viewing. After your thanks and indication that you would review sources better,[7] you proceded to make a further edit of the same problematic type.[8] Framing it as a "controversy" about "the strength of evidence" is more than a bit misleading. You have one "side" indicating that positive evidence is rooted in poor studies and therefore better experiments are needed for proof, but that positive results are highly unlikely. The other "side" indicates that it is generally considered psuedoscience. That's hardly a "controversy" about "the strength of evidence" and it's not an edit supported by the sources, but rather a distinct interpretation of the sources. Furthermore, your comments on the talk page similarly misrepresent sources.[9] Wiseman does indeed quote Utts, but he hardly endorses her claims. The article is quite blatantly and obviously a rebuttal of Utts, with even a very brief read. Vassyana (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)