User talk:2over0

Welcome!

Hello, 2over0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Acupuncture - moved section

Greetings Eldereft -- just wanted to let you know I've moved recent discussion from the top to the bottom of the page in a new section: Changing the introductory paragraphs (2). cheers, Jim Butler (t) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Energy

Your continued attendance to the "energy (spirituality)" debate would be welcomed by at least this contributor, if you'd be so kind as to respond to the rationale there explained. Redheylin (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Graphs and the blind

I agree with this revert, but the reason given ("the graph speaks for itself") isn't quite right. Wikipedia is intended to be useful to the blind, who can't see the graph. The caption in question didn't need the extra adverb, so this revert was fine, but in general it's helpful for blind readers if captions repeat the graph. Eubulides (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, and describing the information presented is just plain good style even for the seeing audience. I try to remember that this encyclopedia is read by the blind, non-native speakers, &c, but do feel free to correct me when I slip up. And yeah, you are correct that that was an adverb, too. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

SOHP

I included a link to the newsletters published to the web by the Society for Occupational Health Psychology because the newsletters provide information about a new organization that is concerned with a facet of health psychology that has emerged relatively recently. The newsletter articles are largely nontechnical and accessible to the general readers. ~ISS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have copied this comment and replied at Talk:Health psychology. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have some expertise in occupational health psychology within the health psychology article. I am trying to improve the description of OHP.Iss246 (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)ISS246 Moved to appropriate section. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 13:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Whom do I ask about getting the rating of the Health Psychology page raised above "Start Page"? It is far from a feature, but it is better than it was. Thanks for your help.Iss246 (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)ISS246

Seems to have been taken care of while I was out. I have not myself dabbled in that particular corner of Wikipedia, but for future reference I believe that anyone not intimately connected to the article in question may go over it and assign a rating. Such people may be found at the relevant wikiprojects. Good and Featured articles require more rigorous and formal review: WP:FAR. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC:Chiropractic profession is fringe

Eldereft, I want to thank you for your input at the chiro challenge. I very much appreciate your objective, logical and sensible view on this. We should have done the challenge 4 months ago when all the drama started, but it took awhile for the issues to really play out. Although I might not be around to see the final outcome I do want to say that it took guts to come out and say what you did and actually listen to the arguments and evidence presented. And for that, I am extremely grateful, whatever the outcome. I just wanted to be heard fairly and believe, as I always do, that in time, science and research will support or refute the claims. If chiro is primarily for NMS, as the evidence demonstrates, then it should be not be shackled by the rules of WP:FRINGE as it currently is. If that is my legacy here, great because it was based on reputable sources, both academic and layman and not the innuendo and personal opinion of a handful of skeptics who treated it as fringe without the evidence to support such a stance. Bob Dylan said it best "times are a changin'". Very best, CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re on my talk page...

Oh, I forgot about Reiki- I think of that as paranormal. I guess a whole lot of paranormal involves healing in one way or another. I'm really not that sensitive to stuff, I don't recall that you did anything questionable, if you did (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Explain your recent edits

thanks

   * (diff) (hist) . . Akashic records‎; 15:25 . . (+8) . . 75.101.10.126 (Talk) (added missing words needed for syntax)
   * (diff) (hist) . . Garden of Eden‎; 12:08 . . (-279) . . Eldereft (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 216610581 by Majeston (talk) rv. Please take it to Talk:Garden of Eden to make your case)

Majeston (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Majeston (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Electrical sensitivity

Hi

I'm not sure if you are an admin, or even the right person to ask, but there is some controversy over on the electrical sensitivity page. A user has made numerous and massive edits to the page without getting consensus first. I have reverted then reinserted some good edits, while starting discussions about others on the talk page. However, the user hasn't joined the conversation and just reverts to his preferred version. I think it might be wise to protect the page for a short time so we are forced to discuss the changes, and it would be best to start this from a stable, previous, version of the article. What do you think? Can you protect it? Could you give me or other users advice? I'm aware that I may have acted contrary to some rules I'm unaware of, and I'm now worried about "edit warring", so any advice you have for me too would be greatfuly received. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not an administrator, but I have forwarded your request to requests for page protection (which was taken care of even as I wrote this - neat). There is a list and a category enumerating the administrators, but the several noticeboards (listed at the top of the RPP page) are a pretty reliable way to get outside input. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Style Guides

Regarding your revert here, firstly WP:MOS is not a policy but simply as it says a guide. Secondly I can find no where on that page, or related pages such as Style Guide Medicine to support your notion. a See also is to contain blue wikilinks, which a navbox contains. I cannot see, despite what you say, why manual links cannot also be included if need be under that heading, above the box. All in all your revert, to say the least, appears pendantic, perhaps you might explain further your explanation? As origonating author of that Article there are indeed good reasons for the change. Jagra (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply at Talk:ME/CFS hypotheses#Navbox placement. Please also see WP:OWN. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Quit the wiki and run

How is that vandalism? I don't get it. If you don't convince me, I'll put it back. Rracecarr (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Restore it if you really want to, but it serves no apparent purpose but to inflame a currently quiescent issue and revel in the misery of others. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's funny. People need to stop taking themselves so seriously... Rracecarr (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is funny (as is the one on your page), but it is also kinda mean-spirited, no? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be interpreted that way. So I will leave well enough alone. Maybe I'll put it on my talk page with the anon's other effort. Rracecarr (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

The Homeopathy ArbCom case has finally run its course. Remedies include no Sourcing Adjudication Board and providing for discretionary sanctions to enforce the primacy of encyclopedia-building over advocacy and original research. Some more explicit language and nice pithy quotes along the lines of WP:PSCI would have been nice, but still - 2½ cheers for the committee! - Eldereft (cont.) 12:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi

Thanks -- though the whole section seems to have gone...along with my comment. Paul H. Smith (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Herbalism

Feel free to be bold; there's nothing wrong with deleting the comments, coming up with a new title for my comments, and leaving them, is there? I'll delete his comments though. II 20:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Atropa belladonna

thanks for that title change - that didn't even occur to me when I made it. --Ludwigs2 22:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries, that sort of thing happens a lot even on non-disputed articles. Just try to keep it focused on content and remember that the talkpage is supposed to serve as an archive for people who were not around for this particular series of reverts. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Electrosensitivity again

Hi. Thanks for your help previously. Randomized is causing trouble again on the ES page, would it be possible for you to have a look? Thanks. --CaneryMBurns (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Here is to hoping that this does not flare up like Talk:Cold fusion. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It would appear

That our precious uninvolved administrator to the reality-based community, is actually showing their true colours by only going after those who a reality-based slant - while letting off the more serial offenders. Now why is it that this doesn't surprise me. It's even got to the point where other admins now are starting to question their "uninvolvement". Time for some popcorn as the wiki-dramaz increases...you would think some admins would learn... Shot info (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw a thread (on AN/I, maybe?) discussing that possibility. The Machiavellian interpretation would be that it is probably easier to get the people who do not have a direct financial interest to shut up than to stop the carping from the people who do have a direct real world stake. This leads naturally to a quieter and more balanced encyclopedia. I guess it goes back to the old problem that a superficial veneer of civility (e.g. "with all due respect") is commonly considered more insulting than polite, but is somehow socially acceptable here.

On a related note, what is up with the medicine denialists' propensity for addressing everyone as "friend"? None of my actual friends do that. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I have no idea :-) Perhaps its one of those things where if you say it often enough, it becomes the truth? Similar to most woo really :-) Roll on the dramaz moar :-) Shot info (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Shroud of Turnin

You left a message on my talk page regarding the page reference to my posting about the aforementioned subject. It is a footnote on page 46 of the book, The Demon-Haunted World. This is a book by Carl Sagan. Thanks, Thomas Conway (tfcii)