User talk:Valjean

$\star$  Some principles governing this talk page  $\star$ Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette here. This talk page is my territory, and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. While I reserve the right to delete comments, I am normally opposed to doing so and use archives instead. If I inadvertently change the meaning, please contact me! When all else fails, check the edit history. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

$\star$  Regarding posting (or reposting) of my personal info at Wikipedia  $\star$ $\star$  DON'T DO IT!!  $\star$ Lately I have become more sensitive to the posting of personal information about myself here at Wikipedia. I am the target of cyberstalking and hate mail from some pretty unbalanced people and regularly receive threats (including occasional death threats). While I don't normally have any reason to hide my true identity, any past revealings by myself on or off wiki should not be construed by others as license to do it here at Wikipedia, where only my "Fyslee" tag should be used. My personal identity and activities off wiki should be kept separate from my user name and activities on wiki. While such revealings here have often been done innocently, I still reserve the right to delete such personal information posted here at Wikipedia by others. My own and my family's security is at stake here, and I would appreciate support in this matter. Thanks. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Editing controversial articles

Feel free to comment. -- Fyslee / talk 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Chiropractic

User:Surturz got irritated and stated he would delete a whole article section that is under active discussion, then he actually did it, all without a shadow of consensus. The user has been warned here and here. -- Fyslee / talk 05:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:BRD. You are free to revert. Please do not report me for vandalism. --Surturz (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay this time. Please be more careful in the future. -- Fyslee / talk 05:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Following up on your comment left at Surturz's talk page: Surturz's edit was not vandalism. --Matilda ^talk 05:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never removed a warning template before, but this is too much. Don't you ever template an experienced regular user like me again! I have replied on Surturz's talk page. BTW, I have considered requesting a RFCU on that user. On a lighter note, Waltzing Matilda is a favorite of mine. I just love that song. -- Fyslee / talk 05:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• You stated at User talk:Surturz :

  My choice of words may be brusque, but such an action long before a discussion is finished, with absolutely no shadow of consensus, is called vandalism. I'm sure the user has learned a lesson and will be more careful to ensure consensus before such an action in the future. -- Fyslee / talk 05:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism - Surturz's edit does not fall into that scope - note : Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. --Matilda ^talk 05:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess we disagree on the meaning of "good faith". Edits made in irritation with no shadow of consensus in sight are at the least a WP:POINT violation and will often be considered vandalism. -- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• By way of background - Surturz and I both edit the article John Howard (where we don't agree) - its talk page would have to be competing for one of the more poisonous environments on wikipedia - at least for those of us from down under who are normally well insulated from such world turmoil as the Balkans, Middle-East and other well-known spots of contention. Having been personally attacked there innumerable times, I have little tolerance for personal attacks elsewhere on the wiki though of course am always powerless to respond other than with a whimper when I myself am attacked.

Yes I like the idea of waltzing even though I disapprove of theft of sheep, pursuit of thieves until they commit suicide, ... --Matilda ^talk 05:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed you both edit the same articles. I hope Surturz has learned a lesson, and I will try to be more careful in my comments next time. Peace? -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely peace! :-) --Matilda ^talk 05:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Waltzing Matilda

While I've got you "on the line", so to speak, can you enlighten me on the story behind Waltzing Matilda, and the difference between the original and Rod Stewart's version? I don't know all the words to the original. I just found Rod Stewart's version on YouTube - "Tom Traubert's Blues". I just love that version since I'm a Stewart fan. -- Fyslee / talk 06:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know Rod Stewart's version - didn't know he had done one even. The article Waltzing Matilda is not briliant but not too bad. It is about class structures, an itinerant man who steals from a rich land owner (well squatter which canbe something different - but definitely rich and by the 1890s probably did own the land). It was written not long after some particularly nasty industrial action where shearers went on strike and clashed with the property owners - 1891 Australian shearers' strike. Banjo Patterson who wrote the words is one of Australia's better known poets. We all learn it in primary school and if you go overseas and have to sing something Australian - if you haven't managed to crawl away first - then it is probably the song that will come to mind and you won't forget despite blushing enormously! Your audience will almost invariably recognise it too. Is Rod Stewart singing about sheep stealing , up rode the troopers 1 2 3 ... ? --Matilda ^talk 06:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it's a different story, but same melody and some shared words. Here are the lyrics. -- Fyslee / talk 06:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It turns out the article mentions version by Tom Waits, which is covered by Rod Stewart. Wikipedia is indeed a good place to start when looking for information! -- Fyslee / talk 06:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

And the old men in wheelchairs know
That Matilda's the defendant
She killed about a hundred
And she follows wherever you may go

is a bit depressing. I know "And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda", but not "Rockin' Matilda" which sounds more cheerful :-) I will have to look it up when I have a chance. I will also follow up the YouTube link to Rod Stewart's verion but can't at present.
Certainly I too enjoy where wikipedia takes one when you start looking for information - the main facts are important but it is the less important facts which make it so interesting and to my mind useful. Accordingly I am an inclusionist but seem not to be running witht he flow in taking that stance at present. I concur with the policies - no problem that something has to be verified appropriately against a reliable source, but after that, wikipedia is always to my mind better for including rather than not! --Matilda ^talk 07:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the same way. I see no harm in including less than super important facts, as long as they are well-sourced. If it's very controversial, then other things might play in which would mean I'd have a different attitude. Generally Wikipedia should be more, not less. We aren't a paper encyclopedia. -- Fyslee / talk 13:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Many infectious disease

This edit introduced the phrase "many infectious disease", which doesn't sound grammatical to my ears. The cited source says just "infectious disease"; how about if we just remove the "many"? Eubulides (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I only added it to make sure readers didn't misunderstand "infectious diseases" to mean "all" infectious diseases. As we both know, vaccinations aren't developed, or even suited at present, to combat every single infectious disease. That's why I think adding "many" is a legitimate addition. Would "some" be better? -- Fyslee / talk 09:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Spinal Manipluation & Spinal Adjustment

The context for this section.

Hi Fyslee, I am responding here rather than at WP:NORN because I don't believe it is on topic over there. I strongly believe that it is valid for a practitioner to conclude that the results of the research on SMT and results of research on SMT by Chiropractors as interchangeable. However, due to WP:SYN, we as Wikipedia editors cannot make such conclusions - we need a reliable source that states this. No such source has been presented in the length of this dispute—that has been the problem all along. - DigitalC (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the abundance of instances where chiropractic researchers and other writers use the terms interchangeably and cite SMT research performed by non-chiropractic researchers - and sometimes not even involving chiropractors - take care of that point? Chiropractic researchers will even refer to adjustments performed by chiropractors as SM. Non straight researchers ignore the distinction in terminology made by straights, especially when actually publishing their research in mainstream journals. It's possibly based on those facts that a specific source hasn't been mentioned. Eubulides might have one, but I consider it common knowledge, and common knowledge doesn't need to be sourced.

I've studied this stuff for years, read mainstream and chiropractic research, read chiropractic websites, participated or lurked on chiropractic discussion groups, communicated with association presidents, researchers, professors, Keating, and also very interestedly followed along with what's happening in the profession, with a number of wonderful acquaintances made along the way. It's basically subluxation-based chiros or ultra straights who insist on a difference in terminology. Of course this all would only relate to research of similar HVLA types of adjustment/SM, not the myriad other brand name techniques labelled as "adjustments", such as Activator, and the one (which I can't think of right now) where body contact isn't even necessary. I've seen a video of it being demonstrated. There were obvious cracking sounds without any skin contact, assumed/claimed by the DC to be coming from cavitation of the spinal joints under her hands. The patient seemed to be impressed, but some skeptical observers of the video considered busting her for fraud.

If any sourced discussion should be made, it would be to cite the fact that ultra-straights do make a distinction in terminology, especially WCA, ICA, and F.A.C.E. people. As far as I know, there is no evidence of any physical difference, hence a paucity or lack of mention of such things in real research. I obviously don't consider JVSR to be real research. It's of the pseudoscientific type, and an embarrasment to many DCs. -- Fyslee / talk 14:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on the article. In Chiropractic, we shouldn't be discussing research on SMT not performed by Chiropractors. We have Spinal manipulation for that. I agree with you that the majority of the content of JVSR is not real research, and I haven't seen any quality content to come out of that "journal". - DigitalC (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are touching on another matter, which is whether we should be spending so much space and time on "chiropractic effectiveness", and then discussing in detail the effectiveness of specific techniques. I have spoken on that matter and been ignored. I don't think anything but the well-known positive DC-patient encounter needs coverage, whereas the details about the effectiveness of various techniques should be done in their own articles. Even the effectiveness of the very relevant Chiropractic adjustment should be in that article, not in the Chiropractic article. That's my opinion, which is shared with a number of other editors, but our opinion hasn't carried enough weight. We've had endless "effectiveness" discussions and I just got worn out. If an RfC on the subject were held, I'd repeat my opinion there. -- Fyslee / talk 00:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Documenting deception

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a deceptive box at the top of his talk page that is quite deceptive:

• See the top of this version

He is definitely not "semi-retired" or "no longer very active"! He is extremely active.

When asked to revise or remove it, he has removed my remarks instead of being collaborative and removing the deceptive box:

• once
• again

This deception has to stop. If he doesn't do it, I'll have to take this higher up. We can't have deceptive editors here at all. Away with them! -- Fyslee / talk 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• AN/I notice. -- Fyslee / talk 01:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack on QuackGuru

This "resolved" summary on ANI seems to constitute a personal attack on QuackGuru.

Please don't do that again. You know WP:NPA perfectly well. Snarking at people a bit is one thing - this was too much. Lowering the level of civil discourse on Wikipedia in this manner is corrosive of the community. Just don't do it again.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I read your warning. I AGF of you and your intentions, but object to at least three admins defending obvious deception by an editor. AGF cannot have any weight with an editor who is obviously deceptive. That's pretty basic here. If an editor is cooperative and collaborative, they will not be undermining the whole wiki experience and policies by deceiving the community. My requests for QG to remove or revise his box aren't the first ones. This is an old matter, yet he refuses to stop deceiving the community. This just happens to be the first time I have brought it to the AN/I. If admins won't reign him in and at least scold him, what are we to do? We can obviously not AGF, and that makes editing with him quite difficult. Deception at Wikipedia in this manner is corrosive of the community. -- Fyslee / talk 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot discuss it in a manner that doesn't insult QuackGuru and the admins to look at the ANI thread, then you create a whole new abuse incident in which you are the offending party and will be sanctioned for further abuse. This is regardless of the underlying merits of the original complaint.

When you take an issue up in front of ANI, the result is that your complaint is visible to a whole lot of very important people on Wikipedia. You've been around for a while, including on ANI. You know this. If you chose to behave in an insulting and abusive manner there, regardless of whether your complaint has merit, you will get nailed for it.

There's no need for that. It's counterproductive to your cause of convincing people that the original complaint has erit. And getting yourself sanctioned is rarely a good life path choice.

So... Please, back off, don't do it again. You know why. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already replied to your previous comments on your talk page. I agree with you.

While I've got you "on the line", so to speak, what is the proper way to deal with deception, if AN/I isn't the proper venue? Is it strictly the "way" I did this, or is it OK for editors to openly deceive, and then not once, but twice demand AGF? I thought ArbCom had already decided that AGF no longer applies in situations where editors have shown themselves unworthy of trust and engage in deceptive behavior. -- Fyslee / talk 02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think ANI is a reasonable venue. I am going to avoid taking a stance on what he's doing with the tag, for the moment, as it might cause a conflict of interest with recent admin actions and warnings etc. But I think that going there to discuss it was basically the right thing to do.

In terms of someone's abuse going past the point that AGF applies anymore... Fundamentally yes, the policy is that once someone's demonstrated to be sufficiently abusive AGF fails to apply anymore. But the decision point for that is up to the admins. You need to be aware that others will judge the situation on their terms and background, and may well disagree with your conclusion there. That's why presenting it dispassionately (not so well done here) and with good evidence (done reasonably well here) are important. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. This was not my best moment and I apologize for being unwise. Something needs to be done, but I didn't handle it well. I am not proposing to do anything stupid in my assumption of bad faith about him, but I will be watching him more than ever. This just happens to be one little iceberg tip in a long history of more serious abuse and disruption (including attacks on Jimbo's status) many of us who edit alongside QG have had to endure for years (in his present guise). Just run an RfCU and you'll see Wikipedia's nice farm turned into a plowed field with numerous bomb^sock craters. -- Fyslee / talk 02:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is deceptive for QG to have that box on his talk-page. I also think that users can't "more or less do what they want with their talk pages." otherwise I could deceptively state on my talk page that I am an admin on WP. Is there anywhere else to go with this issue? - DigitalC (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation research

Spinal manipulation research - a place to store some things. -- Fyslee / talk 02:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

 I don't do Wikipedia much so I am not sure how to best communicate this to you but the Spinal manipulation article seems to have a lot of negative 'research' about stroke and manipulation but does not contain the following study I think it should be included.  Also I did not see it in you research stores.  I thought it would be something you should see if you haven't already.

"Cassdy, DJ, et al., Risk of Vertebrobasilar Stroke and Chiropractic Care: Result of a Population-Based Case-Control and Case-Crossover Study" PMID: 18204390 91z4me (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

AGF and BITE

Fyslee. I have noticed that you have been throwing around veiled accusations (and blatant accusations) that editors recently joining Chiropractic are a certain indefinately banned user. (diff for Surturz)(diff for Soyuz113). While I have no evidence that either of these users ISN'T Corticospinal, I think it is important to assume good faith. If problems arise, a request for check-user could be filed. DigitalC (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall directly accusing anyone, only airing suspicions. I have asked for an honest answer from Soyuz113. If it later turns out that he's a sock, a dishonest answer can be used as evidence against him. I did this with CS, and he answered dishonestly, thus adding more evidence against himself. He has already proven that he is deceptive and is willing to use abusive sockpuppetry, and got himself indef banned. I was rather saddened by that because many of his edits and his POV were things I was sympathetic to. It was definitely not because of his POV that I supported his banning, as he falsely accused. When accused he began to start with false conspiracy theory charges and persection complex statements. Now if Soyuz113 privately identifies himself to be another legitimate user, then no problem at all. I will not out him/her or reveal their identity in any manner. If Soyuz113 will send me an email, my suspicions will be allayed and this will simply die out, and I may even defend them (without outing them). I have nothing against the user or their edits (other than the minor problems we often have with many users), but I do abhore abusive sockpuppetry and block evasion. That's what I'm after, no matter how good or bad a user's edits. You will notice that even though I am suspicious, I still answer their comments and am AGF on an editorial level. Until there is proof of sockpuppetry, I will continue to do so. My hints are more for the benefit of other users who might wish to begin to keep their eyes open and do a bit of sleuthing, a favorite activity of some users. -- Fyslee / talk 13:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I for one felt directly accused, and your supposedly subtle 'hints' were not subtle at all. I certainly do not feel that you assumed good faith when I started editing Chiropractic. I think I have now convinced you that I am not User:CorticoSpinal, and only since then have you toned down your hostility to my edits. Sockpuppetry is insidious, but assuming every new editor of Chiropractic is a sock clearly violates WP:AGF --Surturz (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Therapeutic horseback riding

Hi Fyslee - I'm bringing this to your attention because it appears to be related to your field of expertise. I recently merged three articles: Therapeutic horseback riding, Equitherapy and Hippotherapy, because there had been merge proposals on them for many months with no discussion, and all three had significant content problems and overlapping information.

The resulting article though is unfocused and insufficiently sourced. Since the topic seems to be related to physical therapy, I was wondering if you might be interested in checking it out. If not, no problem. Have a good one. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at it and made some formatting copyedits and cleaned up the EL. I have known several PTs in Denmark who are licensed in this, and the NHS pays for it as part of handicap therapy. -- Fyslee / talk 05:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting that it's covered by the NHS. I wonder if other countries do so as well. Anyway, thanks for reviewing it. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very much a (newer) mainstream therapy, being an addition to the therapeutic arsenal already used by PTs there. PT research. See page 30 -- Fyslee / talk 06:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tree

I think that is a Mountain Ash, but I'm embarrassed to say I'm not even sure. —Pengo 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Are problems still ongoing at the article? What's the current situation? What needs to be addressed? Vassyana (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to help in improving that article. The problems I see are unsourced synthesis, and undue weight along with original research (especially issues of the merit of evidence based medicine). I think the best approach is to simply find the sources and summarize them paying close attention to undue weight issues. Macgruder (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion

Those who have edited in related areas within WP might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Amusing and interesting post! Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Call for desysopping

See my comments on user talk:AGK. Frankly, I find your comments unacceptable. I shall say no more about the matter. Anthøny ✉ 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal's sockpuppetry and block evasion case

A collection.....

SSP

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CorticoSpinal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, Fyslee, I am looking at your contributions to the Checkuser case, and I'm concerned that your last entry will be deemed a fishing expedition by the checkusers.

If it was part of the same edit pattern, that would make sense, but I didn't see that. Do you have more than account name to go on there? If that's it, and the editing is sufficiently unrelated... might want to strike that section. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that checkusers should be experienced enough to know that sockmasters can easily have many interests and have several socks at work, some editing in different areas than the controversial ones that got them blocked in the first place. There would therefore be no overlap in subject matter. This case involves similarities in username, editing from the same location, verbal abuse of opposing editors, and many previous blocks, all traits shared by CorticoSpinal. That's likely more than just an interesting coincidence. If a biologist found a bird in an area that shared four distinctive features with another known species in the same area, would we call it a "fishing expedition" if they were to request a DNA check to see if they were related birds? In essence many RFCU are "fishing expeditions", but when based on several distinctive similarities, they are judged as legitimate "fishing expeditions". Such do exist. -- Fyslee / talk 04:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

speculation

I missed this when you first added it, but over at Talk: Chiropractic, you said "I can understand why Surturz would feel uncomfortable with this, but he's in the minority of the profession who supports vaccination, even if he might be among a majority within his circle of DC friends, thus giving him a feeling that his is a majority position, when it isn't." I'll thank you not to speculate on my occupation and friendships. It's inappropriate. --Surturz (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry and apologize for that. I wasn't even aware I was speculating! After observing your editing and comments for some time now, I just took it for granted as self-evident that you were a DC, which certainly would be just fine. We have some fine DCs editing here. -- Fyslee / talk 13:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Ramanand Rao Jhingade

Thanks for dealing with this. I was trying to think of who I should report this to but then real life got in the way. My first attempt at google-fu and I didn't do to badly I think. All the best, Verbal chat 06:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Context:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Naturstud&diff=prev&oldid=237247235 (and other warnings)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:59.92.155.231&diff=prev&oldid=237422593
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Dr.Jhingaadey

-- Fyslee / talk 13:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Zinfandel GA review

Hi, I don't know if you've been monitoring Zinfandel lately, but it's now under Good Article review. If you can help address remaining concerns (ferreting out original research, citing any remaining claims that need citing), particularly possibly reorganizing the History section, please feel free. Thanks. I already addressed your concern about the lead section claiming the wrong climates for Napa and Sonoma. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison/BADCITES

Excellent collection of bad and unreliable sources. These sites should never be used in an manner, including external links, except in articles about themselves. -- Fyslee / talk 14:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop it.

Stop slandering me at Talk: Chiropractic. I have nothing to do with the edits by the IP address. --Surturz (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty strong language, especially since it isn't true. I'm beginning to wonder if English is your second language, which is just fine, but would explain some of the misunderstandings that have been occurring. I will reply at Talk:Chiropractic. -- Fyslee / talk 14:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Does not work

The url for the Fisher-Goldacre debate does not work. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I only added a wikilink, but I'll take a look at the URL. Thanks. -- Fyslee / talk 05:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Chiropractic

you said: Your comparative analogy stands on all four legs as a comparison goes, except for the pretty major details that spinal manipulation isn't "bad", and chiropractic isn't "bad". Okay, yes, I'll concede that there are some "bad" uses of SM, and there are some "bad" elements of chiropractic, but we are separating them and dealing with the good and the bad in this article. That's what NPOV requires of us - this is exactly what I was trying to say. I was denigrating the "chiro is bad" argument. However, I don't think non-chiro SM should be mentioned in the article. --Surturz (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been proposing a "chiro is bad" argument, only certain "bad" aspects that are gradually becoming more and more fringe. Improvement is happening faster in Canada, Europe, and Australia, but far too slowly in the USA, where the vast majority of DCs practice, and where the political clout exists that affects the whole profession worldwide. I saw your denigration as a straw man and poisoning the well against myself and other mainstream chiroskeptics. I am seeing this subject as an American who has been living in Europe most of his adult life, has many chiropractic friends, has moderated a chiropractic association's discussion list, has written a book on chiropractic that will never be published because of death threats to myself and my family, has communicated extensively with chiropractic leaders, professors, and people like Keating, and has been studying the profession for ages and sees it from a more global perspective than those who live in the USA. My POV has mostly come from DCs themselves (both fringe and reform) and been very much affected by their writings and statements. If there is any legitimate role for DCs that I would support, it is the one that Sam Homola and others have pushed for for many years, and that is as a back care specialty akin to Podiatry and Dentistry, without the subluxation mumbo jumbo and overreliance on "adjustments" as a cure all.

I have stated several times that I would rather see detailed descriptions of efficacy in the respective articles for the methods involved. It would be easier to tie commonalities and differences between Spinal manipulation and Spinal adjustment together, than doing what we are doing now. My objections are thus not based on OR or SYNTH grounds, but on lack of appropriateness, mostly because of place constraints, for dealing with it in the Chiropractic article. If someone will start an RfC on the matter, and never mention OR or SYNTH, I'll support moving most of the efficacy matters out of the chiropractic article, but no one has started it and I am not inclined to do it myself, at least not right now. Starting and dealing with an RfC can be timeconsuming. I'm controversial enough without starting something like that. I would prefer to back up others who share my POV. -- Fyslee / talk 02:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I've got nothing to add to what I've said except to reiterate that if there is a point to be made about Spinal manipulation in the Chiropractic article, then it would be a better use of everyone's time if editors restrict themselves to references that draw conclusions specifically about Chiropractic rather than attempting to shoehorn in references about a different (albeit related) topic. All I see in Talk:Chiropractic at the moment is the same points being made over and over. BTW your personal circumstances are really of no relevance to wikipedia, and any special qualification you claim on the subject must be ignored out of pragmatism. --Surturz (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we have been going around in circles for a long time, with various participants, from long before you arrived. Levine2112 is the driving force behind keeping this alive, where wikilawyering and forum shopping have been the order of the day. This isn't the first subject he's dealt with in this manner, often dragging out discussions for months and even more than six months on one topic.

Since chiropractic authors and researchers have no problem with blending the two matters and making conclusions for the chiropractic profession and its guidelines based on both non-chiro SM and chiro SM research, I see no point in being so adamant about refusing to follow their example. They represent the profession when it comes to V & RS, research, policies, practices, and guidelines, and if we editors deviate so significantly from their example, we are engaging in OR and selective omission that weakens article quality and violates policies here.

I would rather we moved the efficacy stuff out of the article, so we agree on that.

I'm very well aware that no one, especially (because of a direct COI) chiropractors, has any preferential status in editing these articles. Around here status is directly related to a good reputation based on a history of understanding of policies, knowledge of the subject, good writing skills, good editing, good behavior, and an ability to collaborate with editors who hold opposing opinions. They are usually inclusionists, since deletionists only alienate people and make enemies by directly disrespecting the hard work of others. This is the talk page where things are more informal, which is why I provided some personal background so you would understand where I'm coming from. Sorry if I offended you by doing so. What I would really like is if we all could get together, share a few beers, and really get to know each other. I find that getting to know someone makes it harder to misunderstand them and it encourages more congenial relations. We are, after all, editing at the same table. -- Fyslee / talk 06:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A difference of opinion

In the face of Edzard Ernst stating that the majority of spinal manipulation RCTs for lower back pain are in fact not related to chiropractic SM, how can you still hold onto this notion: Since chiropractic authors and researchers have no problem with blending the two matters and making conclusions for the chiropractic profession and its guidelines based on both non-chiro SM and chiro SM research, I see no point in being so adamant about refusing to follow their example.? Following their example? Whose example specifically are you following? You have been presented mainstream scientific evidence contrary to your own beliefs. So here is where the line is drawn in the sand. On one side stands the scientific skeptic and other other side stands the pseudoskeptic. Make your choice. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And just where does he state exactly that? -- Fyslee / talk 06:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you still misuse the expressions "scientific skeptic" and "pseudoskeptic". I stand on the same side and share the same POV as other scientific skeptics, who are skeptical of much of chiropractic and other forms of alt med which you defend, and they would consider you to be a pseudoskeptic, as described by Robert Todd Carroll, so I suggest you take this elsewhere than my talk page. Quoting him from the Pseudoskepticism article:

• Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation" puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."

The only skepticism you promote is skepticism of scientific skeptics who criticize your fringe beliefs. That is the definition of a pseudoskeptic. -- Fyslee / talk 06:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing the definitions to accomodate a belief is the hallmark of a pseudoskeptic.

Now then, you asked for a quote and I shall provide one yet again:

The authors also claim that 43 randomized, controlled trials of spinal manipulation for back pain have been published, but they fail to mention that most of them do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation. - Edzard Ernst [1].

So there is the mainstream scientific evidence from a scientist on "your side" of the Alt Med argument. Ernst states that of the 43 RCTs of SM for LBP, most of them don't relate to Chiropractic SM. Yet at Chiropractic we are including many such studies because some of us claim that they not only relate, but rather directly relate. Yet, they provide not evidence of such a relationship. Just opinion. I have provided scientific evidence that they don't relate. Well, Mr. Skeptic, what are you going to do? I present evidence, the others present feelings. So, are you going to let your personal feelings for me or the subject get the better of you here or are you going to go with what the scientific evidence says? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as I suspected, you once again misquote Ernst when you write:

• "In the face of Edzard Ernst stating that the majority of spinal manipulation RCTs for lower back pain are in fact not related to chiropractic, ..." - Levine2112

You have been doing this time and time again on Talk:Chiropractic by leaving out the last two words - "spinal manipulation". You even know the exact quote because you occasionally quote it right, but insert your own opinion and OR when you misquote him by leaving out the SM part. Let's compare the real quote and your misquote:

• "... do not relate to chiropractic spinal manipulation.- Edzard Ernst
• "... Edzard Ernst stating ... not related to chiropractic." - Levine2112

You are making a talk page OR violation when you do that, because you interpret him as meaning chiropractic, when he says and means chiropractic "spinal manipulation". Now please stop doing this not so subtle manipulation of his quote for your own purposes. I'll copy this particular bit to the talk page so others will be alerted to your misquoting. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I quote Ernst in full and in case you don't know, chiropractic SM is my shorthand for chiropractic spinal manipulation. It seems like you keep turning this into a semantic debate instead of sticking to the core which is: Ernst has stated that most SMT RCTs for LBP are not related to chiropractic SM. Given that and that the threshold for WP:OR is that the source is directly related to the subject, how can we include an SMT RCT for LBP in the article Chiropractic to discuss chiropractic spinal manipulation without violating OR? You have the scientific evidence and the policy evidence. I'm curious to see if you will let your rational skepticism win out or if you will let your personal negative feelings for chiropractic (and perhaps me) get the better of you. And if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about your first sentence in this thread. You only quoted him in full after I asked for a precise quote: "And just where does he state exactly that?" Your first sentence in this thread is like several others you have made, where you quote him without adding the SM part, and that's where you are making the OR to suit your own purposes. SM is related to chiropractic, whether you like it or not. Ernst wasn't even discussing that point, only that someone included chiropractic SM research without making it clear. You're trying to make him say something he didn't say, and Eubulides has called you on that one before. -- Fyslee / talk 13:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oy vey! As I explained, no trick is intended. It is just shorthand. Now can you please stop with the semantic distractions and get on with the substance of the discussion. Given that the threshold for WP:OR is that the source isdirectly related to the subject and that Ernst tells us that most all of the SMT RCTs for LBP are not related to chiropractic SM, how can we include an SMT RCT for LBP in the article Chiropractic to discuss chiropractic SM without violating OR? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rude comments like these are best ignored. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. BTW, are you ever going to answer my email about my PC problem? -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.