Jump to content

User talk:Apers0n

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jfurr1981 (talk | contribs) at 14:47, 17 September 2006 (Chronic granulomatous disease). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome to my Talk Page. Please use the box above, or manually enter new messages at the end of my page.

Dermatoglyphics

My mistake. I first checked the second one and it wasn't correct. I then looked at the first one and it had an Australian web-address for an American society. While strange, it is a legitimate link. I'll add it back. Ted 15:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood type diet

Hi, Aspers0n. Your edit to the Blood type diet article added, "Unfortunately this type of misinformation is used all too often against theories that people oppose for some unrelated reason, and are simply looking for a way that appears to discredit it...." From that new content, you may want to consider rewording the following original research phrases:

  • "all too often"
  • "for some unrelated reason"
  • "people [...] are simply looking for a way"
  • "Many the criticisms [...] are the result of partisan politics"

If you don't find time to reword them, I'll eventually get around to it. The Rod (☎ Smith) 22:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

osteopathic

Hi! I have not signed on in a few weeks, and I just discovered your comments. I totally support your proposals. You are right, there has been sufficient time for anyone with an opinion to object. I think that perhaps a disambiguation page leading to different articles would be a very neutral way of separating the US and non-US osteopaths. Make any changes you have in mind and I will back you up on it. I will also continue to help edit.Donaldal 04:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that by separating osteopathic medicine and osteopathy we are making an arbitrary (and not entirely valid) distiction. I think as soon as we try to make the article on osteopathic medicine follow the US model and osteopathy follow the European model we are going to have tons of edits ruining the distinction on our hands. US DOs will immediately edit osteopathy and insert their parity with US MDs, etc, and the distinction will be lost. We could try to edit those out every day for a long time, but I think we would eventually lose the battle. So, here is another proposal. What it we merge osteopathy and osteopathic medicine back into a new, very brief article stating that osteopathy is so different in different countries that each country must be dealt with in its own article. This would serve like a disambiguation page, leading readers to appropriate articles. US DOs would not feel compelled to assert their equality in an article devoted to ostopathy in the UK. It would also be a lot less of an arbitrary distinction between osteopathy and osteopathic medicine (I think there are few who would agree with the distinction). Thoughts?Donaldal 15:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are doing a good job.

Homeopathy

sorry to have removed your alt med thing please feel free to add it back on now...previous revert was a backward step. thanks Peter morrell 17:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same apology for me. However I think Herbalism needs to be added in this template box as this is the oldest therapy, homeopathy has its orgins in it too. Sorry I placed in the wrong order. It should be oke like this right ? Currently I try to organize a new consensus page on homeopathy. As classical homeopaths we share this interest, feel free to join at User:Homy/homeopathy, --Homy 18:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject Herbalism has been removed from the template box again. I don't know who or why but I strongly suggest to insert it. It is the origin of main stream medicines, homeopathy, Ayurveda, TCM, Tibetan etc. actually almost all medicine found their origin in herbs. --Homy 08:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for my consistancy, but HealthWorld Online, a WORLD instead of USA organisation, also use Herbalism as user Fyslee altered. From a neutral point of view this might be better. For good catagorizing you might leave the NCCAM classifications. They use: Alternative Systems Acupuncture Ayurveda Chinese Medicine Chiropractic Herbal Medicine Homeopathy Naturopathic Medicine Osteopathy

--Homy 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I use the template {{Wikiquote}} in homeopathy it does splits the picture with the text, which doesn't look nice, could you help me here ? Thanks --Homy 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't bother you too much I hope. At the German Wiki there are some nice pictures of Hahnemann. Is there a way to use them at Samuel Hahnemann without downloading over my computer and filling the copyrights. --Homy 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I very much like your idea of subcategories (maybe first on Known homeopaths , this list has more elaborations). But as you might have observed, most of the remedies don't have a homeopathic descriptions (yet). So I don't know whether this is wisdom. German Chamomile Chamomilla (fixed). --Homy 08:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Most remedies: Materia Medica Pura --Homy 08:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oke, it is a good idea (categorie, medicines). Is it also possible to make a short link on the top right to the Topics in Homoeopathy. --Homy 11:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean on each page with the template. Some articles are long, the reader could be pointed to the template, like: Topics in homeopathy, if this is a good idea, thanks --Homy 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC) and in the template: Back to top --Homy 13:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Genetics Project

I'm not frustrated or disillusioned or have any problems with the medical genetics project. I'm simply a genetic statistician in a non-medical atmosphere. The way you are going is just fine for medical geneticists (like the title suggests!). I'm more of a human geneticist. I'm sorry if I caused a problem, I just felt that my interests are different from the medical aspects of human genetics (For example, I have over a dozen human genetics texts on my shelf but only one on medical genetics — and old 1973 textbook by Thompson and Thompson, and zero on medicine). Good luck with the project! TedTalk/Contributions 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood type

Umm, why? It seemed quite an interesting fact to me. And it also leads nicely into the "Rhesus system" sub-section? So did it seem extraneous to you? Shenme 05:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Bedside card.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bedside card.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Medical genetics

What do ou think about this template? I've created this on the basis of chemics wikiproject template. It should be used to clasify articles related to our project. NCurse work 13:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. So do you think we should create a section for the sample of Biography importance scale and link there in our template? Good diea. NCurse work 06:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Look, our most important articles are listed in the article rating subpage. I think we should avoid importance scale because of your arguments. Leave it and concentrate on quality scale. Importance scale will always be subjective, and it is hard to be subjective in such a sensitive area. I change the template. NCurse work 10:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last question in that topic. :) In that template, the quality scale should represent OUR scale (I mean stub-poor-need exp-good-FA) or the scale of other projects (Start-A-B-class, GA, FA)? I' d vote on the second one, but then how to manage ours? NCurse work 13:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then first, please react on my merge-proposal in the categories' talk page, and I'll ask a botowner to help us out. Second, We change our scale, by leaving the colorcodes, but a new system starts:
  • stub -> remains stub
  • poor -> Start
  • Need exp/org -> B-class
  • good -> A-class
  • FA -> remins FA

Do you agree? NCurse work 13:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update is ready: User:NCurse/Work1. NCurse work 15:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the project pages, and started to put that template on the articles' talk page. Help is welcomed. :) Please have a look. NCurse work 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturopathic Medicine revert

Naturopathy redirects to Naturopathic Medicine, so I'm not sure how you can say that the article is not about naturopathy. Can you be more specific about your objection to my edit on the talk page? I am going to re-add the comment, as I believe it is a valid criticism of naturopathic medice, as shown by points earlier in the article. --Myk 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I will not revert, but will raise a discussion point on the talk page. --Myk 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that is a good point. Your points are noted. I will look for the BMJ article you mentioned, becasue it is counter to everything I have previously heard about homeopathy. Do you have a link to it, at all?--Myk 18:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Personally, I think the 2005 Lancet Study is sufficient to reassert my rejection of Homeopathy. I do not belief there is any evidence that it is effective beyond placebo. A few studies showing slightly higher than placebo results is not sufficient to overcome the lack of any explanation for the operation of homeopathic remedies.
Also, I think that BMJ report is being misrepresented in Wikipedia, given the conclusions in the abstract:
CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.
That is not what I would call a positive conclusion. --Myk 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple. Lets say, for example that 200 studies are undertaken. 90 studies are abandoned part way through because the results are poor. Of the remaining 110 studies, 80 show results above placebo. That means 120 out of 200 studies show results no better or worse than placebo. That is the possibilty which leads to the lack of a positive conclusion from the meta-analysis. They could not find out how many trials were started and then abandoned. --Myk 00:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So without any way of correctly assessing the statistics, they cannot make any definite statements about the efficacy of homeaopathy. All they can say is that more investigation is justified. --Myk 10:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Alphabetical

It's totally doable, I just don't think I'd be able to do it any way other than manually. There are bot people who'd be able to do it, but I doubt that they'd bother with a smaller job like that. Many are interested in huge, sweeping projects (e.g. Tawkerbot2). If you'd like, I can do it manually when I have some free time. Just let me know.

By the way, Cystic Fibrosis is a featured article, and that isn't reflected in the Wikiproject page. alphaChimp laudare 07:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fix CF, but we don't want to waste your time. I'll fix the table... :) NCurse work 07:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MedGen

I started using that template in our most important genetic disorders. Please have a look! Other: should we create a Medical Genetics Collaboration of the Week? Because we should concentrate on our Main articles. What do you think? NCurse work 06:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Article rating, I'd like to create sections like ABC, DEF...etc. What do you think? Now it is hard to edti the page because of the long list. NCurse work 10:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pseudoscience

I understand how you feel. But put the boot on the other foot. Help defend my good edits. It takes more time than it's worth to protect other good edits otherwise. Mccready 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will defend any edits that I feel are justified. --apers0n 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, you haven't defended my justified edits. Pity about the Hungarian stuff. But I have limited time. Mccready 07:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific about which edits you have made that are justified and need defending? --apers0n 07:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

work it out for yourself. I don't have time to hold your hand each step of the way. Mccready 08:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

revert

Are there or are there not people making pseudoscientific claims about natuopathy, natural medicine etc? Mccready 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the best place to discuss the controversial subject of whether Alternative medicine is pseudoscience or not. As far as I am concerned that topic was decided by consensus in Talk:Alternative_medicine/archive_10#Pseudoscience, which agreed not to use that category. The article may have moved on since then, but changes to reflect that should be noted on the page designed to carry that type of discussion — as has been pointed out repeatedly on your talk page it is generally accepted policy to discuss edits on talk pages of the relevant article, per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, and you appear not to engage in that type of discussion, claiming a "lack of time". Should you wish to use that category or make other controversial edits against consensus I suggest you do so when you do have time to justify them on the relevant talk pages or not make them at all.
For the record, my objection is based on this extract from the Pseudoscience article:
  • Some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community; see the individual articles for more information.
Neither Alternative medicine nor Naturopathic medicine are mentioned in that list or even the page. --apers0n 12:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes things have moved on and the link did not show consensus anyway. The label does not mean the whole field is tarred as your own quote purports to show. Mccready 00:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience

Please read the NPOV policy

It is not NPOV to fail to categorise something which is obviously well connected with pseudoscience and identified as such by the scientific community as being pseudoscientific. — Dunc|☺ 18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give evidence of such identification and justify the inclusion per WP:CG controversial categorisations. --apers0n 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/alternative.html ? — Dunc|☺ 19:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does one article published in 2001 in some fringe journal with unquoted circulation figures represent the views of "the total body of scientists"? --apers0n 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical genetics

I'm back from WikiWacation... :) What would you think if we'd create a list like these? We can request it here. Just before that we should finish with article rating. I'm now at 49 XXXXY syndrome... NCurse work 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll work from the top, you from the bottom. :) We should create a todo list for every article or just the main ones? I'll be in duty when you'll be away... :) Have a good break! NCurse work 17:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baldness treatments

Why did you revert my edit of baldness treatments on the basis of "spam"? The links are to published papers and a US patent. This need to be discussed on the talk page. The other editors are citing my publiished paper without attribution. Expert editors are allowed to cite their published papers at arms length, which this is. The other link is to a published paper from the NCI on the use of TEMPOL in the treatment of radiation alopecia. This is NOT my work. Pproctor 01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTM

You voted for and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse work 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathy

I noticed you stay up on this topic and I wanted to know what you thought about dividing the two terms, giving them their own pages… Naturopathy for the global perspective, nature cure/ hygiene and the naturopathic practitioners who do not work as physicians. And Naturopathic Medicine for the medical field, physicians, licensed states, accredited programs etc… Kind of like what osteopathy and osteopathic medicine have done. Any take on that? Thanks for all your work! --Travisthurston 02:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for not helping out in medgen project's assesment. I've been busy and I had to reorganize WP:MED. But now I get back to work. I continue with the upper tables, and if we finish at least about 50-100 articles, I ask a bot to maintain an assesment list for us. It will help our work so much. So sorry again, and good work! NCurse work 07:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the blood type diagram!

I've fixed it now, good catch (pretty crappy mistake to make!) InvictaHOG 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, Wikicommons was giving me a lot of errors yesterday, so I'm not sure what happened. It looks fixed to me now (though it looked fixed yesterday and was broken for me today), so let me know what you see. InvictaHOG 10:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had nominated the duplicate for speedy deletion but for some reason it hasn't been deleted yet. I have been focusing on the images and haven't read the text for awhile. I think that it would be nice to hang on to it for a few more days until I get a chance to go through it. There are some obvious things to work on - short sections and paragraphs and well as almost no references. The article needs a bit more work, IMHO. But it's actually pretty close, especially given the amount of information found on the connecting summary style pages! I have the day off Thursday (post-call) and Saturday and was hoping to really work on it then now that Down Syndrome is featured! InvictaHOG 09:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Osteopathic medicine and Osteopathy

re:[1] I see. This [2] has cleared things up for me. I thought that since nccam/nih is studying the profession, and that they are both US entities, that the change would have been more accurate (and point people in the right direction). But now I understand where OM lies. Thanks for furthering my education. I look forward to working on the Naturopathic medicine pages with you! --Travisthurston 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [3]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [4] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical genetics articles by quality

I've created a Category:Medical genetics articles by quality and requested to have a list, log of our assessed articles. I'll let you know when it is ready. Maybe we should consider to create a GA article group too. What do you think? NCurse work 09:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic granulomatous disease

Thanks for your review and input on chronic granulomatous disease.Jfurr1981 14:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Apers0n&oldid=76231844"