User talk:Gleng

Welcome from the Wikidocs

Greetings. I met you through the hypothalamus page. There is a group of physicians that is keeping track of medical things around here. It is a nice group. There is a general page on medical topics at User_talk:Jfdwolff/WikiDoc. A user named User:Jfdwolff has done a great ob of alerting medical professionals to it. I was going to alert her to your being on Wikipedia, but she is gone til sometime in March, so I am taking it upon myself to welcome you. JFD keeps track of the medical page orgaization. The wikidoc group seems mostly physicians, but we have other knowledgable people in the group, and by that measure you are qualified in spades.

Again, it is a pleasure having an academic who is such a good communicator on Wikipedia. Welcome to the community.

Steve Holland Kd4ttc 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, saying that I keep track of the medical page organisation is an overstatement. The WikiProject (at WP:CLINMED) is a central hub of activity for clinicians, medical students and of course academics. Given your experience in medical scientific writing, you appear to be uniquely equipped to present hard scientific information in a form that is accessible for the informed layperson. I have personally found writing for Wikipedia immensely useful in learning how to present clinical science to patients.

Despite what Steve says, I'm actually male. :-) JFW | T@lk 20:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Neuroscience

Mr. Gleng: Judging from your edits you are interested in neuroendocrinology. We've got a group over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience who could use some expertise in that area. If you'd like to join us we'd be honored. Cheers! Semiconscious • talk 01:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Addictive, isn't it?

Eh? NIce edits. Kd4ttc 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Requesting references...

re hormesis. There are a bunch of templates that people slap onto articles and talk pages at WP:TM, including things like "Verify facts". I don't know how effective they are, I haven't used 'em (only removed a few), but you never know. Talk pages can work. As far as I can tell, though, it's mostly DIY! IMO (one of...thousands), it's better to "wait for references" on existing stuff, and include references on new material you're adding, rather than remove anything but the obviously wrong or...misguided, so if you can't sort out, others may come along and do it... Work-in-progress and all that! Hope that helps... --Tsavage 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lateralisation

Cheers! I felt good after creating hat page started but then it devolved into protracted arguments about "mathematics" with another user. I admit I was definitely not as amicable as I could have been. Anyway, it left a bad taste in my mouth after that encounter. I'm glad someone appreciates it. :) Semiconscious • talk 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Gleng, the categories are already messed up big time. Plz, stop making the mess bigger. You can't put an article into a category and the parent category of that category. Also it doesn't make sence to put the receptors for some of the neurotransmitters into the Category:Neurotransmitters. -- Boris 07:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

We really need subcategories in Neuroscience that will cover the receptors. You want to do that? -- Boris 18:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

You're very welcome. I should double-check the math with a calculator, though (and will today), I did it in my head. The figure for the Earth comes from a website, but given that there's 10³⁰ kg in the Solar System, and assuming the Earth is at most a part in a thousand, it's in the right ballpark. I'll check that too. In any case, regardless of the exact figures, having figures makes it clearer just what we mean by "very improbable." "Improbable" doesn't convey the same sense that "you'd need enough pills to fill a tenth of an Olympic swimming pool" does. -- Pakaran 15:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OFC

Cheers dude. Yeah I have got in the habit of writing "passive voice" stuff for lay articles... ta! --PaulWicks 10:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

3 RR violation on Homeopathy

You've been blocked for 3 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. PLease refrain from any more reverts for some time when the block expires. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NatSel

I see how it goes. I think splitting the article will solve mosy of the problems, as the main discussion is between Darwin adapts and current day scientists. KimvdLinde 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the copy editing, I need it :-) English is not my first language, and being somewhat dyslectic does not help. KimvdLinde 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vaccinationist

Thanks. Your edits greatly improved that article. I have been thinking the way forward may actualy be to do a complete restart, and suggested this in the talk page. I got as far as taking the anti-catholicism (a model of civilised discourse and clear writing) article and then by doing a couple of global search and replace substituting into the structure of that article. Nobody else has joined in so far, so I've not been in a rush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-vaccinationist/temp is it. Midgley 11:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Please respond to my answer posted on the talk page of Chiropractic. ackoz 18:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome. I've been watching for awhile and appreciate your balanced input. I'm not sure I'll be able to do any better, so please don't go too far! I think you are a very calming influence and both Steth and Fyslee obviously respect your input. I just saw an article today in "Dynamic Chiropractic" - a monthly magazine that has the headline "Chiropractic on Wikipedia: Controversy and opportunity" on the front page - so we may be getting more visitors. I don't know if that will be a good thing or not=) but it could get interesting. -- Dematt 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I had already read the article on-line, and now having received my copy a couple days ago, have read the paper edition. I do hope we get more chiropractors as editors. I do fear that if they are newcomers to Wikpedia, some of them may see this as an opportunity to use the article as a frontpage advertisement for chiropractic, which isn't the purpose of the article or Wikipedia. I'm basically inclusionist by nature, and think the article should include coverage (short!) of all major and minor POV. It should be done in such a way that readers without any knowledge of the subject will get presented with basic knowledge about chiropractic, including both sides of the controversies, and still be left to make up their own minds. Editorializing mustn't "decide for them." I have written some of my POV on NPOV. I'd appreciate your comments -- Fyslee 18:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

More from Dynamic Chiropractic:

Dr. Whalen's ad hominem remark characterizing the Council on Chiropractic Practice (CCP) guidelines as "touted by a small fringe group" is disingenuous. According to How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors, published in 2003 by the Institute for Social Research at Ohio Northern University, "For all practical purposes, there is no debate on the vertebral subluxation complex. Nearly 90% want to retain the VSC as a term. Similarly, almost 90% do not want the adjustment limited to musculoskeletal conditions. The profession – as a whole – presents a united front regarding the subluxation and the adjustment."2 Ninety percent of the profession can hardly be considered a "small fringe group." (my emphasis - Fyslee)

If there is a fringe group within the profession, it composed of the 10 percent who renounce the subluxation and wish to limit chiropractic care to persons presenting with musculoskeletal symptoms. [1]

This should put to rest the idea that there is no controversy in the profession, or that those who believe in VS are a small fringe group. The majority of chiros do believe in VS, and that fact needs to be made clear in the article. -- Fyslee 18:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Gleng! It was so good to hear from you today. I stopped by your site User:Gleng/chiropractic and glad to see your working! I'm leaving the science to you. I trust you can seperate the fluff from the stuff:) You mentioned that you saw some pictures and drawings that might go well on the Chiro page. If you point me in right directions, I'll work on getting them. Did you see the DD Palmer picture? I think your right, this could end up being a great article. Can't wait to see how it ends.--Dematt 01:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Gleng! It was so good to hear from you! Things got dicey for awhile without you. It will be nice to have you back. Don't feel bad though, I've been a little slow with the history, too, but we do have to make a living:) I'll be looking for you.--Dematt 01:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)!!!! Hey, WOW, I just saw you gave me a star! Thanks, you know I needed that. We all need a pat on the back every once in awhile.. I think we all deserve one! Thanks again--Dematt 01:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Whaleto RFC

I've upgraded Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto to include the assoiciated conduct issues. Could you glance at the amended version to check that you still endorse it. Thanks. Tearlach 04:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

PS The mice spoof is a copyvio from The Onion [2]. Tearlach 14:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

reply Midgley 12:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Seance

I have been searching for information on this (Steth actually did remove it), and it is quoted as being from a book by DD Palmer, but I don't have the book.... Please email me and I'll send you what I have. It's all very interesting. The spiritualist, occultist, Freemason, roots of chiropractic. -- Fyslee 19:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Attacks

You left a note on my user talk page I don't understand. To what are you referring? -- David W. Hogg 02:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the head's up. -- David W. Hogg 18:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

natural selection

I am starting to loose track - can you check Marcosantazena's most recent (and extensive) changes and see if any need to be reverted? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please work with KimvdLinde today to put the article into a form the two of you accept. I will then protect it to prevent any vandalism. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I was already planning on a major writing drive this weekend on the sandbox version I am writing. Maybe it is time to get that one to an acceptable version. I want to make some graphics to explian the issue in simple terms. So, lets work together at that page this weekend, and see if we have a reasonable version by the end of it. We can than continue to work on the sandbox version, and replace whenever here is a substantial better version. KimvdLinde 14:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't be in again until Tuesday. At that time, if it is being vandalized, I will protect it. It is crucial though that there be a pre-vandalized version to protect at that time,Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you do me a small favor and move User:KimvdLinde/Modern usage of natural selection to User:KimvdLinde/Natural selection which due to editing, I can not do. (Some admin right would be so handly at times) KimvdLinde 15:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I am currently working on an good example (off line). For the time being, I have choosen antibiotics resistance as that is a topic that hits home with the large public, and it is well documentd. KimvdLinde 13:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Do not worry to edit my stuff, I am very happy that you are willing to do that (I am both somewhat dyslectic and a non-native english speaker). For the moment, I concentrate on the content and what I add are my first drafts so that others can join in. KimvdLinde 14:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the major thing that needs to be done in a later stage is to add a large number of relevant references to many of the topics. I am not doing that now as I am concentrating on the main line, but it is on my todo list for the future. KimvdLinde 18:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Gleng/chiropractic

ECT work

Thank you for some terrific work on the ECT page. That's all. Nmg20 22:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Kalokerinos

Gleng, I would appreciate the favor of you keeping an eye on the current conversation at Archie_Kalokerinos sa AK talk--69.178.41.55 21:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC) formerly isp 66.58...

Biobarnstar

		The Bio-Barnstar
		To acknowledge your hard work on the new version of Natural selection. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I also just realised that you're also based at UoE.

I had already replied to this at my page on the buoquet you gave me, but I should do it here as well. Thanks! Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is so far!

I just copied the newly developed version of the natural selection page to the main space after it was clear that most editors supported the new version over the current version. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

natural selection

Could you please address this: [3] ?

Talk:Natural selection

I have foolishly tried to start a discussion on Talk:Natural selection concerning the definition of natural selection. If you have time, I'd like you to contribute -- or to tell me I'm a complete whack-o. Thanks. Ted 17:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully as you know and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. I hope you are staying active at wikipedia, and if not, we might see each other who knows where! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on homeopathy, I have now posted a [long] reply which I hope covers most of the points raised. No offence meant. kind regards Peter morrell 14:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I will have a look later this evening

I will have a look later this evening. I have to talk with he indain guy anyway, as he is messing up wuite a lot of articles, just by not knowing the wp guidelines. I will be gentle, and have a look. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately I'm extremely busy with my non-wiki life right now, so I'm not sure I'll have time to do much. --Lee Hunter 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ChiroTalk

I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I am trying to help as I think Peter has knowledge that could be valuable especially from the historical point of view. The reason I chipped in last week was Peter has been e-mailing me for help on various editing tasks since I welcomed him to wikipedia on his talk page. I guessed he would come across opposition to his view so have been watching the pages. I've just had an interesting e-mail from him about my comments on discredited ideas and string theory. He took it that I was claiming some special abilities based on the quality of my lecturers at uni which horrified me as I abhor intellectual snobs. Reading my post again I really can't see how he took it that way as I hope it came across as understanding that this years "wacky science" can be next years "hot topic" as scientists are not as closed minded as he thinks and the scientific process works pretty much like natural selection - everything new is given an equally hard time and it has to survive the process to prove it's worth. I have had these problems on other contentious pages where opposing views talk past each other as they are using the same words but talking different languages. I have likened it to colour blindness where one group just cannot see things the same way as the other. Anyway I will continue to help if I can. Sophia 10:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Antiscience

Peter has created this article and it could be good, however currently there is a danger of it being very POV. Do you have any knowledge of, or any time for this article as help would be appreciated balancing and referencing it. Sophia 18:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Coolcaesar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have noted you as an involved party and/or commenter upon the behavior of user:Coolcaesar in the filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I greatly wish that you would comment on his behavior, and add references, links, etc. supporting your particular view to the current evidence already there. Please also explain his attitude/comments/witnessed behavior with detail about your experience in dealing with him. I do greatly appreciate it, and note that your reputation is protected upon comments at arbitration, and cannot be used against you. Thanks for your Time. --Mr.Executive 08:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)