User talk:Djma12

Archived Discussions

• Sept 06 - Feb 07
• Feb 07 - Aug 07
• Aug 07 - Feb 08

Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:

{{Timefact}} displays ^{{chronology source needed}} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information

At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Martial arts of East Asia (origins)

If neither Jennylen nor yourself have any objection, I'm going to change the title of this article to "Asian martial arts (origins)" or "Origins of Asian martial arts". JFD (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I received my copy of The Shaolin Monastery: History, Religion, and the Chinese Martial Arts by Meir Shahar yesterday. Shahar is a professor of East Asian studies at Tel Aviv University and holds a PhD in East Asian Languages and Civilizations from Harvard; and his book is published by the University of Hawai'i Press. Moreover his articles on martial arts have been published in peer-reviewed journals including the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies and Asia Major.

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research—two of Wikipedia's three core content policies—both state that "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" and go on to say that "material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable".

If this article must include material largely attributed to self-published sources online—and frankly I don't think that it does—don't we have an obligation to Wikipedia's readers to draw a distinction between reliable and unreliable sources?

JFD (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi JFD. I've been a little busy lately, so my wiki activities have been seriously cut back. I wholeheartedly support the Wiki policies that you have addressed above. The statement lacks a bit of context though, is there a dispute currently ongoing that needs to be addressed? Djma12 ^(talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

TBI

Hey - I've been trying to improve our article on total body irradiation from a stub to something useful, and thought I'd ask for your input if you have time to look at it. Take care. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that we should have articles on radiation pneumonitis and fractionation (radiotherapy), don't you think? Just in case you're not busy enough. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great! I am nursing a tendon injury that inhibits my typing, but will get on it after I recover. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of the Beanfield

I understand and agree with your sentiments however, when you remove citations, and insert sentences, referencing them (incorrrectly) to events that took place 14 years later! You must forgive people for assuming (i) these were either simple mistakes and (ii) questionning your N(?)POV. You can hear Sabido speak the words for himself if you watch the documentary. From memory I referenced the time at which he says these words exactly. Stephenjh (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation to what you are referring to? The citations provided are from random herbalism websites and personal essays. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the Barnstar. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ayurveda

I appreciate your vigilance. It seems that my edits have been misunderstood as a 'wholesale replace' and 'removal of all that existed before'. I want to explain what happened: 1) 'a wholesale replace' (done by me) 2) 'a revert' (done by the regulars) 3) 'discussion' (with me asking what should be done and receiving suggestion 'that keep every source from the previous article in and add your sources: integrate') 4) I edit again (much after the 'JSR's new article replacing the existing one' thread started) and 'keep every source from the previous article in and add my sources'. 5) I receive suggestion to add sages and other material with sources if I can, these existed in the previous version but without sources. 6) I get a message on my talk page and a vigilant editor has assumed that I have reverted 'all of the previous version thereby undoing the work done by the community' and 'JSR's new article replacing the existing one' (written on Sep 14) holds true on Sep 15 when 'I incorporated sourced material from the previous versions into the current one' on Sep 14 itself.

I am in the process of preparing a draft for expansion with sources. I assume that I have explained myself adequately (I have tried to). Allow me keep all of the sources which existed in the article throughout Sep 15 and before without exception.

Regards,

JSR (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

May I replace the version now? I have a draft for asked expansion ready and I reverted after I explained myself on the talk page but undid myself since I want your vote of confidence and not your disapproval of any of my methods. I emphasize that all previous sources stand and so should the new ones (especially when the bibliography section is as selective as this, now completely undone). Please let me continue (the article was to be completed by tomorrow).

Awaiting response. I have responded in detail on the talk page :), JSR (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the version which had sources from all the versions prior to September 15 (date of reversion) and am in the middle of a major expansion. I see that you may be busy in real life. I have found the recommended material and I could not keep away so please don't have any misgiving as I have retained citations from the previous version and corrected them where required. When the final version is completed (should take two days now that I have my sources) then I will notify you on your talk page and other people on the article talk page.

Regards, JSR (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No Problem,

• For Mitra & Rangesh look in the Reference section for: Mitra, K.S. & Rangesh, P.R. (2003) in "Irritable Colon (Grahni)", Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies edited by Mishra, L.C. CRC Press: ISBN 084931366X. Mitra & Rangesh can be found in chapter 20 of the book Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies edited by Mishra, L.C. 72. CRC Press: ISBN 084931366X.

• Mungantiwar is chapter 5 in the book Scientific Basis for Ayurvedic Therapies edited by Mishra, L.C. 72. CRC Press: ISBN 084931366X.

Since the book itself is a compilation of studies done variously I cite directly from different chapters, covering different studies, each authored by different scholars. In other words, I have already cited directly from the specific study within the main compilation.

Thanks and regards, JSR (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank Dux

The problems are fourfold;

• It's all very poorly written. You have to read everything three times to work out what it's actually trying to say.
• The contributing editors don't seem to appreciate the difference between Dux' claims and verifiable facts. Removing a claim is not the same as saying it's not true.
• Nor do they understand the limitations of primary sources and the need for a neutral voice.
• everything is coated in a thick impenetrable layer of publicity copy.

But since there are some facts and valid points in there, somewhere, and I believe they have the right intentions, I'm reluctant to mass revert everything. It just makes for a tedious job sorting out the horrible mess it's become.

I had the page semi-protected indefinitely. That should cut down on the number of meatpuppets. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is in fact the most poorly written article on Wikipedia. He needs to be described as a true martial artist, not just an actor and author and all that b.s. I am a student of his and would like to see what I know to be true posted on this page. He is a martial artist and needs to be recognized as such. Like I've said before, do you need him to show up and give you a demonstration on his abilities before he's recognized??? Avianraptor (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Your edits were not a problem. I made a mistake. A huge section with a ton of useful references was deleted six edits ago, and I had to painstakingly rewrite it by copying and pasting etc. I didn't mean to revert.Likebox (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the third party assistance

Djma12, thanks very much for being a third party to help at Radiation hormesis. PDBailey (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you too

It was necessary to break the logjam. I couldn't figure out what PDBailey's wanted. It seemed to me he wanted to make Hormesis seem like a fringe theory, which it isn't, rather than a minority opinion, which it is. As I understand it now--- he just wanted a simple disclaimer on the studies that support hormesis to warn about possible publication bias.Likebox (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. I'll continue to see if I can mediate in a productive fashion. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. That was my intepretation of Undue Weight too. But then, why would PDBailey keep flagging the section as POV violating? Can you remove the tag?Likebox (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

more hormesis

Thank you again for the third set of eyes at Radiation Hormesis. I can't say I appreciate the (incorrect) imputation of my motives/conclusions, but I do appreciate knowing how I come off and will try to take that into account.

But I write this because I think our central disagreement has not been mediated. My claim is that text from the National Research Council, the NCRP, UNSCEAR and the French Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Medicine define the majority view. Likebox's claim is that the primary literature (regardless of journal quality [1]) is central. Any further comment on this would be appreciated. PDBailey (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, BOTH of you are correct, and I think this is the crux of your disagreement. Likebox is correct that hormesis is actually not a minority view in respect to in vivo studies, and you are correct in stating that the NRC represents the consensus view in terms of clinical application. This is why I changed up the lead, but would also like to see the in vivo studies included. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

another question

Is it possible you were getting confused as to who was who. I am looking at this edit and in these edits did you intend to direct those at me? PDBailey (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know who is who... I kinda lost track of the conversation in terms of speaker. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Afd of Mucoid plaque

Mucoid plaque is up for AFD... again.

The latest discussion is here. As a previous participant in a AFD discussion for this article, you are encouraged to contribute to ongoing consensus of whether or not this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.--ZayZayEM (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

Maen. K. A. (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Celts & human sacrifice

I've taken the unusual (for me) step of reverting your revision. You no doubt in good faith changed my "this is a Christian polemic" revision, but that leaves a poem which undoubtedly is a Christian polemic (it concludes such worshipping of stones there was/until the coming of good Patrick of Macha (see Crom Cruach) cited as if it were an impartial source, which it isn't. Paul S (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps polemic was an unwise choice of words on my part: I meant it in the very narrow sense of an opposing theologian, but you are right, the more usual sense is of a confrontational piece of writing. I'll substitute tract...? Paul S (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)