User talk:Happening

Welcome!

Hello, Happening! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I removed one of your comments

I removed your comment here [1] because it's not related to the improving of the article. I suggest that you look at the contribution of other editors, pick an editor that you think that will be happy to help you, and posting your comment on his talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about NPOV

Answering your question on [2], the WP:NPOV requires us to put all reliably sourced facts and opinions on the article, including all points of view. WP:LEAD requires the lead to make a summary of the article, and, while the word "quackery" is not mentioned on the article, the section Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis starts saying "Homeopathy is unsupported by modern scientific research", which qualifies for calling homeopathy to be quackery, so it's adequeate that the lead mentions it.

Moving all criticism to a separate section and leaving only positive statements on the article and the lead would be a breach of NPOV, because we would be giving WP:UNDUE undue weight to one of the side of the arguments, specially when there are lots of criticism of homeopathy, and scientific proof against it. As a fringe theory we have to be careful to not promote it against actual sientific validity of it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, There is no section for Criticism in the article on Homopathy which most Wikipedia pages have. Para 2 seems to be pretty critical, so shouldn't we title Para 2 'Criticism' (or else we may end up putting the same matter there as well)? 3 Paragraphs for the Lead may be a bit long anyway. I also found that Anthony Campbell's criticism of George Vithoulkas' statement about Syphilis has been repeated, at least once.-Happening (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edition war on Homeopathy

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have done 3 reverts on 26 hours on an article on probation [3] [4] [5]. You advertised your change first first on the talk page but you didn't wait to raise consensus before making the change, and only one editor answered, and it was for opposing your idea. You made the changes 4 times and you always marked them with "minor", when you were making changes on a part of the article that has been discussed to death to reach that format, and which were being contested by other editors. The "minor" box should not be checked on controversial changes, even if you think they are non-important. Your changes to the lead have been already reverted by five different editors, counting myself, I suggest that you realize that you don't have consensus to make the changes and that you ask on the talk page about it --Enric Naval (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy under general sanctions

Please edit more cautiously, this article is under Wikipedia:General_sanctions, so you may be blocked if you continue your actions. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did wait for replies, but shucks, I wish people reply faster!Happening (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

be careful when adding comments

You accidentally deleted two comments when adding a new comment [6]. I restored the comments to the page. Please be careful not to accidentally delete stuff when adding comments --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, I thought the old comments were not needed anymore. Doesn't that make sense?Happening (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [7] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-Filll (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

experience on use of homepathy

My mother tried homeopathy medicines once and they didn't do anything. We have gone many times to a naturist, since she gives occassionally good advice, and gives thinks like iron (I don't mean homeopathic iron, I mean iron to compensate iron deficencies). On comparison, many members of my family have taken dozens of different medicines that had the desired effect. A few didn't work or had undesired side effects and were replaced by one that worked well. A few times we've had to try 4 or 5 medicines until we found one that worked. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, your post on the article talk page sounded a bit negative. I am glad to see here that this must have been a misunderstanding.

Happening, I don't know if you count me among the skeptics, because in a sense I am one. But I do have experience with homeopathy. My physician, who is a homeopath as well as an "allopath" (relatively normal in Germany), recommended a homeopathic remedy against hay fever. I decided to give it a chance because 1) it's a mixture of stuff in low potencies, so it's more plausible that it works, 2) it comes with a description of what it's for, so presumably it has been tested for efficiency, and 3) I know that my hay fever has a strong psychological component, and some strong conventional medication once worked in a few seconds after I had taken it, i.e. before it got into the blood. Now this remedy really seems to work, although the effect is not the strong and instant one I had with the other stuff. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enric, when y'all have,

"had to try 4 or 5 medicines until we found one that worked",

but have given Homeopathy only one chance (that wasn't even you, it was your mother), is it really unbiased?Happening (talk)