User talk:DanaUllman

Archives: 2007 ♦ 2008: [Jan] [Feb]

Concerns about editing practice

Hi DanaUllman, Following recent discussion, I think it would be helpful to explain some of my concerns, for example this edit:

Friends, I deleted the offending sentence because all of the references given to it do not give any substantiation for it (the "sources" cited do not even review in vitro or basic science studies!). As such, this statement in the article should be deleted. References to disprove it are secondary because there is no substantiation for it in the first place. That said, the review of in vitro studies above provides evidence that there is a difference between placebo water and homeopathic water. Such reviews do not need to be in Nature (which doesn't publish clinical meta-analyses) nor Science...as long as it is in a RS. Although the above review of research acknowledges that no single study has had 100% replicability, there are innumerable conventional tests that are not 100% replicable (most immunology studies for example). This non-replicability is even more common in clinical findings.

Has a number of problems:

• justification of making substantial changes to the article without first achieving consensus,
• mischaracterizing content policies - your edit removed content that was supported by reliable sources,
• wikilawyering, for example the "references to disprove it are secondary because there is no substantiation for it in the first place".

I suggest you carefully review wikipedia:gaming the system and wikipedia:disruptive editing. I'll leave a note on Lara's talk page to notify her of this. Addhoc (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, if there is another complaint about you editing article space without first reaching consensus, you'll be back on article probation. Lara❤Love 18:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Lara, but it seems that you are the one being gamed here. Please note that the person who reverted that one change said this in his summary edit: "rv - no consensus to remove, simply that we don't want to bother rehashing this point" -- I tried to see precisely what changes I made, and in fact, it looks as though I didn't make the changes that I wanted to make and that my changes were totally minor [1]. My talk recommended many more changes but I didn't change them. For the record, I still assert that the 3 references given to the "fact" that asserts that there is no difference between water and homeopathic medicines are not even studies on this topic. One is an introductory guidebook to using homeopathic medicines (it doesn't even discuss research issues), and the other two references do not discuss basic research at all. Adhoc above asserts that the sources are RS, but they are not RS to the fact given (and the homeopathic book cited in not even RS). The contribution to the discussion after my suggestion above was from [Filll] who wrote: "I know you badly badly badly want to make this only positive for homeopathy and remove any mainstream views." And yet, I have never ever proposed this. Don't you see that some editors put words in my mouth and make me seem more extreme than I am, while these accusations are the real problem as they creates ghosts that aren't there. Also, my analysis is that some editors make mountains out of molehills to game the system. They complain over little things and only make them look big. Because you may not have the time to carefully evaluate what really happened, you (as my mentor) want to make certain that I'm doing the right thing. I think that these other editors need mentoring or more serious actions. DanaUllman^Talk 19:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, the passage you removed, as seen here removed a large and very important piece of article. Plus, it was in the lead of the article and the particular point has been addressed since, roughly, the time the article was created. Rehashing the same argument over and over is not beneficial. Addhoc is fully aware that you never actually said those words. I have had much more working experience with you than many other editors and I have not heard you say those words. But your editing actions speak louder than any words. You have continuously sought to minimize or eliminate negative treatment of homeopathy while upholding scant and questionable research that shows it in a positive light. That's one of the reasons those edits are a problem. You are a noted practicing homeopath. You presence here should help the articles grow, not hinder their progress. Baegis (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Dana was being bold. If there is a dispute (as there obviously appears to be) over his edit, then it can be (as it was) reverted and discussed. —Whig (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

End of mentoring

Dana, I think you've been here long enough now that you should have a grasp on what's acceptable and what's not. You've read the policies and should be able to edit unsupervised without getting yourself banned. You're on your own now. Good luck. Lara❤Love 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My misreading

I took a look at your statement about homeopathic plants on the npov notice board and you are quite right to say it was a misreading on my part. Thanks for waking me up...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Yeah...we all occasionally mis-read stuff, though it is always good faith to acknowledge these errors that we all make and then move on. DanaUllman^Talk 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I drew a line through the part that betrayed my misreading last night. : Albion moonlight (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal S. Copeland

• Sure, that's no problem. I reverted the edit because it was an edit that was flagged in WP:HUGGLE, and I, as such, thought the removal of the content was unnecessary, and as such, it was reverted. It's nice to know, that when I am patrolling vandalism, it can also help fix other articles, such as I managed to help out with this one. Don't let one editor discourage you. Steve Crossin (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added some resources to the talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed article

Worth starting this article, and would you be interested in this one? [2] —Whig (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

Alright, thanks, I was able to find it from there. For future reference, when discussing particular actions, what's most useful to others here is pointing them to the record of the specific edit which was made (the "diff"). In this case, it's at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wanderer57/Problem_with_Homeopathy_Discussions&diff=194939851&oldid=194900463. I generally get these by going to either the modification history of the article or the user's contributions, and then clicking on "last" of the line of the applicable edit and copy that address. The advantage to this method is that it goes directly to the relevant message and you also don't have to worry about forgeries, deletions, or archiving. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that you're linking to the sections in which the comment is made. When these are large, it can be harder to find the relevant comment. Try comparing the the link you used ([3]) with the link I showed you above ([4]). You see how the one I used shows his comment directly?

Also, be careful about exaggerating. On the admin's noticeboard, you claimed that Randy was wishing death [5], though I see none of this here. Though if he did do this someplace else, I (and some admins as well) would be interested in seeing it. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you somehow didn't read what Randy wrote [6]: "You are a monster who sells nonsense to the sick, and the sooner you die the sooner the world will be a better place. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is being called a "monster" and wishing me to die soon any type of civility? Do you still think that this is civil and that it warrants a simple week's penalty, while many anti-homeopathy editors are seeking to ban Whig primarily because he has a good backbone for defending a minority viewpoint. DanaUllman^Talk 01:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see; that certainly justifies your comment. I was reading a different comment by him (you told me to follow that reference, so I was only looking at the comment on that page). I'd recommend posting that on the incidents page, and also it would be better to use a diff to point it out directly so that others don't skip over it as I did. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While your summation isn't totally accurate (no clear statement of "wishing"), his statement still doesn't sound very good. I think he has made other statements that are even more incivil. While the first part is partially true, (you are indeed selling nonsense to the sick, which is a dangerously grave matter that is quite despicable and should be unlawful, so many epithets could be chosen, quack being the most appropriate and non-libelous description), it's all a very incivil statement. If there is anyone who does need to be called out on his constant incivility, Randy does. -- Fyslee / talk 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Randy's behavior is incompatible with resolving the ugly situation at homeopathy. Civility, of course, does not trump NPOV, but comments like the above are patently unconstructive and should not be tolerated from either side in the debate. If he continues these tirades after his current "vacation" I will have no problem with supporting a ban from homeopathy-related pages, if not a full siteban, as long as he has not been goaded into another outburst. Skinwalker (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Fyslee's comment above is unfortunate, though I understand this is his opinion, it is less than civil in my opinion. —Whig (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have refactored accordingly. -- Fyslee / talk 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Fyslee...and for the record, "quack" IS libelous. Secondly, IMO, it is akin a the "n" word. Yeah...it is THAT offensive, and people who use it should use it very very selectively and with strong evidence DanaUllman^Talk 03:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

United States courts treat the "Q" words as rhetoric. It is not actionable. Just ask Dr. Barrett, who has been called it many times, and who uses it all the time. Neither party can sue on that basis. Offensive language is part of free speech and the freedom of expression. -- Fyslee / talk 04:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow...I didn't know that and will explore its veracity, though please know that it IS extremely offensive and one should be very careful in using it on wikipedia. Wiki is and should be better than a court of law. DanaUllman^Talk 05:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping back here, but I found an on-wiki guide to creating diffs here. This may be better at explaining it to you than I was. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban next time

Dana, this was a most unhelpful edit. You're changing a sourced statement from a longstanding position, without consensus, knowing that it will be reverted shortly. At some point all the edit warring and combative editing has to stop. Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

I can't do that I'm afraid. From the policy - "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." Looking over your recent contributions I can't see any pattern to the various IP editors who have reverted you, what makes you think these are connected? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, if you think you are being stalked, and want to discuss this in confidence, you can e-mail me through my userpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently most of those IPs were open proxies, which have now been blocked. I suggest that in the future you report any IP that seems to be shadowing you to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic research

"Complementary Therapies in Medicine" yeah I think that indicates the quality of the review.Geni 08:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Help!

Dear Dana, I don't know if you're a Homeopathic Doctor, but you do seem to be a proponent of Homeopathy. Please download the book, "Homeopathy: The scientific proofs of efficacy" from the http://www.guna.it/eng/ricerca/indice.htm web-site and post the clinical trials it mentions on the Talk:Homeopathy Page (the page is now semi-protected, so only users more than 4 days old can post there - I will need to wait till Tuesday to post there). I'm sure that can help change the viewpoint of the other wikipedia users who call Homeopaths "Quacks". I read on Scientizzle's User Page that one can mention web-sites, so please visit my web-site, http://www.cure4incurables.com for more information about me and e-mail me privately. Of course, if web-sites aren't allowed a mention, please delete the web-sites mentioned. Thanks and Regards, Ramaanand (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Dr.Jhingaadey

Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me

Dear Dana,
Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me (or else the others may think I've bribed you); I'm not yet able to post there directly myself because the Page is semi-writeprotected.

Here are some of the studies/clinical trials:-

REDACTED VANDALISM AND SPAM see Ramaanand's talk

Ramaanand (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Dr.Jhingadé

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arsenicum album. Note that the three-revert rule 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have reverted 3 times already. Baegis (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not exceeded the 3RR, and the only time that I have come up to 3 reverts is because I have asked for other editors to verify ONE specific statement, and you (and select other anonymous editors) have refused to do so. I hope that you will AGF and will help me revert those editors who do not verify their statements. DanaUllman^Talk 04:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Watch it Dana, I don't enjoy such personal attacks. If you have a problem with me, bring it up on AN/I. Fishing will get you nowhere. Baegis (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

AGF...there was NO personal attack there. You deleted a URL that was questioned as COI by an editor who was blocked. This anonymous editor and you guessed that TheTutor had COI, but he showed that he didn't. I hope that you consider editing more slowly and with greater verification, and I hope that you consider avoid making up "personal attack" accusations until they are real (remember "Little Red Riding Hood"?). DanaUllman^Talk 04:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. Here's what you actually wrote, and what Baegis is obviously objecting to:

• "As for Baegis, he has been following me around, even though he probably knows that wiki-stalking is not allowed or encouraged. I'm wondering if you have found that he just happens to begin editing where you are editing, even at idiosyncratic articles."

That's an obviously bad faith assumption. He and others obviously have you, your edits, and your activities on their watchlists, just as you have theirs. So what? That's allowed. Wikistalking is another animal. -- Fyslee / talk 05:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

7 day ban from homeopathy related pages

You have been engaged in a low level edit war at Arsenicum album. Other editors have been involved, however you have reverted more often, and have been given more warnings for other disruptive behavior. In accordance with the conditions stated at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation of which you are aware, I am banning you from all Homeopathy related pages for a period of 7 days. Addhoc (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for teamwork

Dana, when you return to work on the homeopathy articles, I have a great idea of how serious progress can be made. With you being a homeopath, you have access to these various dilutions in the form that they will be used by patients. Many of the articles on homeopathic remedies could use some images. For example, the Arsenicum album page would be greatly improved by having pictures of the tinctures, tablet, pellet, or powder form of the remedy. Since you probably have these ingredients and a camera, you could take pictures of them, tastefully done of course, and upload them for use in the article. An idea would be to have the big container (or whatever the main material is stored in) surrounded by the different forms. Of course, you would have to release the image under WP policies, but this is merely to insure that they comply with various copyright issues. Also, you can greatly help with more detail regarding preparations and the use of nearly all of these remedies. Here's to some progress for these articles. Baegis (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis...I am for teamwork, and I really appreciate your good faith gesture here. However, you seem to have an unusual sense of homeopaths. Homeopaths are clinicians; they are not nor am I a drug manufacturer. I do not have crude doses of arsenic in my office here, nor do I have snake venoms on shelves or plants growing, except the usual house/office plants. Taking photos of my office would show books, journals, and homeopathic medicine bottles (not too interesting, sorry). I will let others contribute photos. I'm more interested in content, especially recent research. I am also interested in historian references. I look forward to collaborating on these areas...and I do sincerely hope that we can collaborate. Please use me as a resource rather than as an antagonist...and please KNOW that I am pro-science. DanaUllman^Talk 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thats fine, whatever. The homeopathic medicine bottles might work, but pictures of the remedies themselves could be even better. For example, more of these kinds of pictures or these kinds of pictures would help the articles tremendously. I didn't picture your office as any different from a doctor's office; I just thought that maybe this would be a better way to contribute, since you are one of very few people who has quick and easy access to this material. Because, Dana, the problem with you and other content is clear. Perhaps if you did not make it your quest to prove the efficacy of homeopathy or the existence of water memory, you would find a much easier existence on this project. Baegis (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis...first, I like that we are just talking here. We are both real people. I completely understand why some people are skeptical of homeopathy. I really do. However, when one reviews the clinical research and the basic science research and when I do a review of historical information, there is a strong body of evidence that confirms that the placebo explanation is simply inadequate. If and when one has some personal experiences with these medicines (either oneself or a family member or friend), you learn that these medicines are extremely powerful in their effects beyond placebo. My quest is not to "prove" anything, but rather, my quest is to provide more information to people so that they can make up their own minds. Since you seem to believe that homeopathy is just placebo, I ask that you recognize that some high quality clinical and basic science research suggests otherwise. An encyclopedia should discuss such high quality investigations. I also ask you to learn something about homeopathy so that you can evaluate whether a study is truly a test of the homeopathic system of medicine or if it is simply a test of one homeopathic medicine for one specific ailment (there is a difference). DanaUllman^Talk 19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I gotta tell you that your photo of Oscillo made me laugh

Allopathic

It's a very strange style of argumentation to say "some editors" and then quote one (me) in particular. Just 'Antelan' if you mean Antelan. I don't think we need to be in argument, especially since you simply stepped into a longstanding disagreement of mine with Hopping. Ironically, the type of medicine practiced by osteopathic physicians would fall under the unpleasant label "allpathic", since in the US they practice in the same way as MDs. Antelan ^talk 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, you're right. I do not know about your longstanding disagreement with Hopping. I was responding to a very well-referenced statement that Hopping made [7]. I'm sorry that I didn't mention your name rather than "some editors" (it was not my intent to insult you here). Ultimately, although Hahnemann originally coined the word allopathy in a prejorative way, it has been taken on and used in the present-day by many of the most leading medical organizations and institutions. As such, its use should be incorporated in wikipedia. Even OrangeMarlin finally got the prevasiveness of the use of this term "allopathy", and he wrote, "So you've convinced me of it's use. I'm going to have to drink now." As for the differences between osteopathy and allopathy, there are a lot of similarities these days, but osteopaths have one additional and important therapeutic tool that is not taught in allopathic medical schools. This tool of osteopathic manipulation is an integral part of their coursework and clinical training. This difference should not be trivialized. DanaUllman^Talk 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. Regarding DO vs MD: Hopping has done some impressive work with the osteopathic medicine article documenting how the two fields are now virtually indistinguishable. The amount of time spent teaching manual manipulation is much less substantial than at, say, a 4-year chiropractic college. And regarding his referenced statements - given the hundreds of thousands of articles that address evidence-based medicine, very few call it "allopathic" medicine. I am among those who think that words with offensive connotations should only be used when necessary. Just like "quack" need not be used in reference to homeopaths, "allopath" need not be used in reference to medical doctors. Antelan ^talk 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad that we can return to civilized talk. I'm gonna try real hard to recreate that with everyone. As for your talk above, one cannot compare chiropractic education where the physical therapy is the majority of their treatment options, while osteopathic education has physical therapy as an adjunctive treatment. The bottomline is that there is a difference between MD education and DO education. As for the term "allopathic," medical schools and organizations refer to themselves as allopathic...and as Hopping has shown, the leading (!) institutions use it. No homeopathic school or organizations refers to themselves as "quacks." And now that I'm on that subject, I consider the word "quack" to be so offensive that it is akin to the "N" word to black people and the "K" word for Jews. It IS that offensive. Although the term quack may be prevalent, so are the use of the N and the K words. DanaUllman^Talk 04:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, likewise here with "allopath". I'm glad you can see where I'm coming from, and I'll thank you for your efforts to keep the word to a minimum within articles here, just as I will do the same with "quack". Antelan ^talk 06:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the current problem is with the use of the term. In the United States, "allopathic" has been used by the American Medical Association, the National Residency Matching Program, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.[4] These organizations use the term to distinguish the schools and residency training programs which they govern from the osteopathic medical schools and programs, accredited by the American Osteopathic Association from Allopathic. Anthon01 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please show me the pages where those organizations use the term officially. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several good sources: Have you looked at this website called wikipedia? allopathy is one good place that has lots of good references. Also, at this big and vocal promoter of homeopathy's user-page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Orangemarlin#Allopathic] (please excuse my warped sense of humor...my apologies OM, but a guy can wish, can't he? DanaUllman^Talk 02:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, very funny. My point is that none of those actually demonstrate the major MD organizations using the term "allopathic" officially. Publishing research and news articles that use the term is nowhere near an official endorsement of the term. Antelan ^talk 03:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Quoting from wiki under allopathy, it says: "In the United States, "allopathic" has been used by the American Medical Association, the National Residency Matching Program, and the Association of American Medical Colleges.[4] These organizations use the term to distinguish the schools and residency training programs which they govern from the osteopathic medical schools and programs, accredited by the American Osteopathic Association." At OM's user-page, Bryan Hopping noted, "The U.S. Department of Labor uses the term in the second paragraph of its description of Physicians and Surgeons. It reads 'There are two types of physicians: M.D.—Doctor of Medicine—and D.O.—Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians.'" Does the Dept of Labor could as a RS? (come on...ya gotta laugh at that one) DanaUllman^Talk 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the Department of Labor is an RS for many things - nomenclature not among them! Also, I have read the Wikipedia article, but can you point me to the actual pages where those organizations (AMA, NRMP, AAMC) actually use the term? Antelan ^talk 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a RS for how to spell "Labour" either :) I can confirm that in the UK the term "allopathic" is considered derogatory when applied to medical doctors and surgeons. I think this applies in much of Europe, and, from what I've read, the rest of the world outside the US. It seems it is debatable in the US also. We should avoid a US centric bias in wikipedia. >>Partyoffive (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<<

Charles Darwin's illness

To reply to what you posted on my talk page[8]:

The reference you posted to support your contention that Smith was a "homeopathic physician" didn't support this, for reasons that, as per my edit summary, I set out on the talk page[9] for the article (you really ought to pay attention to what's posted on talk pages - it looks as if a failure to do this is what led to your current ban). Once I had tracked down the hard-copy reference you gave, it turned out to be to one of Darwin's letters[10] in which he wrote, "Dr Smith, I think, is sensible, but he is a Homœopathist!! & as far as I can judge does not personally look much after patients or anything else." It is unclear exactly what Darwin meant by "Homœopathist!!"; he could have meant that he practised as a "homoeopathic physician", but he could equally meant that used homoeopathy as an occasional adjunct to his "water cure", or that he was merely a believer in homoeopathy. It looks almost as if Darwin was using the term "homoeopathist" in a derogatory sense, as something that no "sensible" person should be.

You now seem to have found a better reference for Smith's status as a homoeopath, but I would still question whether, in the absence of any evidence that he acted as a homoeopath for Darwin, this is relevant in an article about Charles Darwin's illness and treatment. If you do decide to reinstate this, I would also question the use of the term "homeopathic physician" rather than simply "homeopath". This is hardly current usage, and although it sounds fancy the word "physician" is redundant as the article has already established that Smith was a doctor.

As for making the edit on your behalf as you have requested, I'm not sure that circumventing a ban by recruiting another editor to edit a page on your behalf is within the rules here. In view of the probation on homoeopathy-related pages and the recent rash of sanctions against editors of those pages I'd rather not consider this. Brunton (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it is clear that Darwin sought care from Edmund Smith, who is described as a surgeon and a hydrotherapist and who is clearly also a homeopathic doctor/physician. You say that you don't want to include reference to him being a homeopath because it is uncertain if Darwin received homeopathic medicines from him. Hmmm. Did Smith perform surgery on Darwin? There's no evidence of this. The point here is that the article is simply describing who Smith was, and he WAS also a homeopath. If you don't choose to show good faith by adding to this article, I'm sure that someone else who is reading this will do so. DanaUllman^Talk 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons for not making an edit that I personally don't think adds anything to the article. I suggest that you assume good faith on my part here. If anyone else wishes to include this, they can use the talk page to reach consensus. Brunton (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. You said that you didn't want to include reference to Smith as a homeopath because it is uncertain if Darwin got homeopathic treatment from him, but you feel OK about listing him as a surgeon even though Darwin didn't undergo surgery from him. Did I miss something? I'm all for consensus. I even thought that I would get YOUR support on this minor addition due to the verification that I have provided. DanaUllman^Talk 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for changing what is already there, which seems to have been taken from a RS. Please respect my right not to make edits that I consider pointless. As you say, if others think it worth making the edit you suggest (or even removing the reference to Smith as a surgeon), I'm sure they will do so. Brunton (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Allopathic medicine" / U.S. usage

In the U.S., the term is used to make a distinction not only between two types of degrees (MD & DO), but two types of exams (COMLEX & USMLE), two types of residency programs (ACGME & AOA), two matching programs (NRMP & NMS), two medical traditions/cultures, etc.

Examples

• United States Dept of Labor - "There are two types of physicians: M.D.—Doctor of Medicine—and D.O.—Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. M.D.s also are known as allopathic physicians."
• Journal of General Internal Medicine (Harvard Med School Faculty) "Comparison of osteopathic and allopathic medical schools' support for primary care." PMID 10632817
• Journal of Vet Med Education "Part I: twenty-year literature overview of veterinary and allopathic medicine." PMID 18339961
• Journal of the American Medical Association. PMID 18270355 "National survey of deans of all 125 accredited allopathic medical schools in the United States."
• Journal of American Geriatrics. "Attitudes, experiences, and interest in geriatrics of first-year allopathic and osteopathic medical students." PMID 18086123
• National Residency Matching Program "The NRMP classifies SMS applicants into 6 applicant types: [Type 1] Graduates of U.S. allopathic medical schools. A graduate of a Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accredited U.S. allopathic school of medicine."
• Illinois State Legislature. Osteopathic and Allopathic Healthcare Discrimination Act.
• Michigan State Legislature "A health care corporation certificate shall provide benefits in each group and nongroup certificate for the following equipment, supplies, and educational training for the treatment of diabetes, if determined to be medically necessary and prescribed by an allopathic or osteopathic physician:"
• Florida State Legislature "The bill requires each Florida-licensed allopathic or osteopathic physician, in conjunction with the renewal of his or her license under procedures adopted by the DOH."
• American Medical Student Association. "AMSA RECOGNIZES the equality of osteopathic and allopathic medical degrees within the organization and the healthcare community as a whole."
• American Medical Association "Allopathic med school enrollment rises 2.2%"
• Annals of Family Medicine 4:182-184 (2006) "Aligning the Interests of Osteopathic and Allopathic Teachers of Family Medicine."
• American College of Physicians "But that growth is causing something of a schism between osteopaths and their allopathic counterparts. . . "
• Dept Health and Human Services, National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program "Allopathic Medicine: For students of schools of allopathic medicine pursuing the MD degree - MD"
• University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey "The National Resident Matching Program matches applicants with allopathic residency programs."
• Journal of the American Medical Association. "In this article we report the specialty choices of 2 groups of entrants to US allopathic residency programs: graduates of osteopathic schools of medicine and those of non-US medical schools."
• Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) "How much does ERAS cost? Allopathic programs: ERAS fees are included in your annual membership dues to the AAMC."
• New York Times. "Nationwide, there are 125 allopathic (traditional medicine) medical schools and 23 osteopathic medical schools."
• Yale University Undergrad Career Services. "Allopathic (M.D.) Medical School: The following information is in regards to Schools of Allopathic Medicine . . . "
• National Association of Advisors for the Health Professions
• Student Doctor Network "Some students feel that they need to take the USMLE in order to get accepted into an ACGME* (allopathic) residency."

Bryan Hopping ^T 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles discussing modern usage in U.S. medicine

• ""Allopathic medicine" has been revived and come into common use in recent years as a synonym for mainstream medicine, and many MDs today accept the designation uncomplainingly." (Whorton, James. Counterculture Healing: A Brief History of Alternative Medicine in America. 4 Nov 2003. WGBH Educational Foundation)
• "Despite its ongoing use in unconventional medical circles, the term allopathy did not enter the general lexicon of modern American medical schools until recently. . . . there is a clear trend of increased use of the term among mainstream physicians. . . . The increasing popularity of allopathy today is likely related to the surge of interest in complementary and alternative medical therapies. . . . The term has even caught on with our physicians in training." (Gundling, KE. When Did I Become an "Allopath"? Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:2185-2186).
• "Although policy makers, social scientists, and others often refer to the MD profession as allopathic (Gevitz, Norman PhD. Center or Periphery? The Future of Osteopathic Principles and Practices J Am Osteopathic Assoc. Vol 106 No 3 March 2006. p 121)

There are many more examples over on the Wikitionary Talk:Allopathic page. Cheers!

Bryan Hopping ^T 04:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you kind words. As far as being ganged up on . . . don't even get me started. Bryan Hopping ^T 04:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum

One source (Peter) says that the duck lungs and heart are used:

• British Homeopathy During Two Centuries, Peter Morrell, 2000

Another source (US News and world report) says the duck liver and heart are used:

• Flu Symptoms? Try Duck: Why sales of homeopathic products are soaring today, Dan McGraw, U.S. News & World Report, February 17, 1997.

So which is correct?

--Filll (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an easy one...it is the liver and heart...and it's the 200C...and doesn't it make sense that homeopaths use avian sources to treat people infected with flu viruses? You'll one day realize how far ahead homeopaths often have been, even if some homeopaths have their head in the sand (as every profession does!). DanaUllman^Talk 00:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Pellets

Some discussion of various pellet sizes [11].--Filll (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It states:

Medicated Pellets are manufactured in various sizes e.g. #10 pellets (very small), #20 pellets (small), #35 pellets (regular) and #55 pellets (large). While the diameter of the medicated pellet differs from size to size

So what are those diameters? Weights? Volumes? What are they made of?--Filll (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual numbers have a meaning, but I'm not certain of it right now. The #10 pellet is sucrose and is the size of a poppy seed. I'm fairly certain that the others are a mixture of lactose and sucrose, but I'm too busy now to do the homework for ya. Sorry. DanaUllman^Talk 00:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

LM dilutions

I have found many different methods for making LM dilutions. For example:

• [12]

1. 1 grain of 3c trituration is placed in 500 drops to make LM/0 (1 to 501 dilution ratio ??? sounds wrong).
2. One drop of LM/0 is added to 100 drops of diluent and succussed 100 times. This is then LM/1 potency (one drop to 100 drops is more like a 1 to 101 dilution ratio of course)

   Claims that this dilution factor is close to 6C, but is it?

3. Then this LM/1 is used to moisten 500 poppy seed size pellets
4. One pellet is then placed in 3.5 ounces, and succussed. Then 1-3 teaspoons of this material are then placed in a "dilution glass of water" (how big???).
5. 1-3 teaspoons given to patient as dose.

• [13]

Overview: No 10 globules are required for saturation of medicine in LM potency. 100 globules are equivalent to 1 grain (i.e. 65 mg). 500 globules to be soaked in one drop of previous potency. One such medicated globule is required for next degree of dynamization in LM scale.

Hence 1/500 th of a drop instead of one full drop is used in LM potency. The material part of the medicine is reduced by (1/500 x 1/100 = 1/50,000) 50,000 times for each degree of dynamization and at the same time the curative power of the medicine increases tremendously. (makes little sense of course).

1. start with trituration 1 drop or 1 grain (???) and 100 grains of sac lac, ground up for one hour is 1st trituration
2. 1 grain of first trituration + 100 grains of sac lac ground up for one hour is 2nd trituration
3. 1 grain of 2nd trituration + 100 grains of sac lac ground up for one hour is 3rd trituration
4. 1 grain of 3rd trituration + 500 drops of diluent (100 drops water, 400 drops alcohol)= mother solution (LM/0 ??)
5. 1 drop of mother solution + 100 drops alcohol + 100 succussions = LM/1
6. 1 pellet #10 is soaked with LM/1 + 1 drop water + 100 drops alcohol = LM/2
7. Claim that LM/2 is more potent than LM/1 by 50,000

   Gives examples of using LM/8

• [14]

Gives two different procedures:

LM (50 millesimal, Q) - the second potency scale developed by Hahnemann, introduced in the sixth edition of the Organon. Start with a 3c triturate of a remedy. One part is placed into 500 drops liquid (400 drops water, 100 drops alcohol). One drop is placed into 100 drops of alcohol. This is succussed by hand 100 times. One drop of this mixture is used to medicate 500 #10 pellets. This is the Q1 potency(sometimes written 0/1). The Q2 is made by taking 1 of these medicated pellets, putting it into 1 drop of water, and then mixing into 100 drops of alcohol. This mixture is succussed 100 times by hand.

Today, the HPUS standard differs from Hahnemann's. The following excerpt is taken from HPUS Abstracts - General Pharmacy:

LM (50 millesimal, Q) - the second potency scale developed by Hahnemann, introduced in the sixth edition of the Organon. Start with a 3c triturate of a remedy. One part is placed into 500 drops liquid (4 parts water, 1 part alcohol 95% v/v). One drop is placed into 2 ml alcohol 95% v/v. This is succussed by hand 100 times. One drop of this mixture is used to medicate 500 #10 pellets. This is the Q1 potency (sometimes written 0/1). The Q2 is made by taking 1 of these medicated pellet and placing it into 2 ml alcohol 95% v/v. This mixture is succussed 100 times by hand."

Main difference appears to be a confusion about what 95% v/v means.--Filll (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• [15]

-states one grain is 0.062 grams.

-States most of their remedies are processed to LM/120

-very confusing part about 8 successive triturations that makes no sense

-refers to subtriturations which I do not know about

dissolve one grain of trituration (supposedly 3CH) in 500 drops of water/alcohol (400 drops water, 100 drops alcohol 94%)

Then mix one drop with 100 drops alcohol and succuss to get LM1

Put on 500 "granules"

Take one granule, dissolve in one drop of water and put in 100 drops of alcohol.

This is LM/2

etc

So, in light of this, do you have any idea or opinion on which is most common? Which might be a standard? Which might be closest to what Hahnemann suggested? Thanks.--Filll (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I'm not a scholar on LMs, though David Little is (he's the 1st reference above). I do not see significant differences between any of the above methods. I'd file this one under no-big-deal. DanaUllman^Talk 21:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

More Ullmans

In the library today, I ran across more books on homeopathy by other Ullmans. Any relations? Or connection?--Filll (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Judyth Reichenberg-Ullman, ND, MSW, and Robert Ullman, ND, have written numerous books on homeopathy, but we are not related at all (except being in the "homeopathic family"). It is just one of those coincidences. I'm glad that you have a fire under you that is investigating homeopathy. I hope that you get a chance to read my newest book, "The Homeopathic Revolution." This book required an inordinate amount of historical research. You, in particular, might be intrigued by my chapter on "Why Homeopathy is Hated and Villified." Have you read all or any part of this book yet? DanaUllman^Talk 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I did see it on the library shelf however. I might take a peek at it next time I am there. I am trying to really get enough information together to write this subarticle I have been working on very slowly. It is quite painful to do, with the quality of the references, that is for sure. However, it shows how badly an article is needed to clean up some of this mess.--Filll (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Every field has its differences of opinion, and every field has some people that spread misinformation. For the most certain info on the making of homeopathic medicines, consider going to: [www.hpus.com]. This is the best RS on the making of homeopathic medicines. This is the "Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the US's site". I don't know if they'll have LM info at this site, but you'll find other good and solid info there. DanaUllman^Talk 05:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible interview?

Would you consider appearing on [16]? It is easiest with a headset, or you can use a microphone and speakers. It is also possible to do it with a telephone in the US and Canada. I have done it twice so far and it was sort of fun. --Filll (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I'm honored. First, let me say that I'm quite impressed by your diligence. Whether we agree or disagree is not an issue. I appreciate it whenever anyone takes a subject seriously and tries hard to figure it out. I presently don't have Skype, but I guess I can get it. It's free, isn't it? How long of an interview will this be and who listens to it? Where is it available? DanaUllman^Talk 01:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the interviews are typically 20 or 30 minutes long, but the discussion can be longer or shorter as needs be. Skype is free, and it works best if you have a headset, although you can use a microphone and speakers. Anyone who is on the internet can listen to them; they are available at that page linked above. You can listen to previous shows to see what you think. It does not have to be about homeopathy; it can be about anything you are interested in, as you can see from the list of past and future topics.--Filll (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

possible probation breach

You will want to read this comment of mine [17] and the answers to it. You should have warned the editors at Talk:Homeopathy that this study had already been shooted down at Talk:Arsenicum album. I'm not sure of the reach of the probation that you are subject to, as in wether it extends to all homeopathy articles or just Homeopathy, or if pushing studies on talk pages can be considered a breach. I'm also posting on Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg you to stop editing any stuff related to those studies until an admin has weighted on the issue. I'm afraid that you are just going to get yourself blocked again for this, and it would be a pity. Please reconsider cooling a bit on this and avoiding controversial edits --Enric Naval (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx...and please explain why this was a controversial edit. Which other drugs do you insist that the funders of the research be listed, or do you only recommend that this standard be applied to homeopathic medicines. DanaUllman^Talk 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It was controversial because the articles are on probation and you have been blocked or warned for, uh, *checks this talk page* edit warring, making changes with no consensus and a personal attack described as "obviously bad faith assumption", if I'm not mistaken, and also put into probation and assigned a tutor. And now an incident has been raised on an article that is on probation and you just kept editing stuff related to the studies pointed at on the incident and you even argue that the probation does not apply to your edits. Well, it does apply to all editors on homeopathy articles, and there is a clear warning at every talk page. Homeopathy even has an extra-big warning box with a list of relevant policies, on top of the probation notice. Arsenicum album and Water memory have it at the very top of the talk page. And on Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation you are listed as aware of the probation, and you were already blocked 7 days because of that probation. I think that by now you should start understanding the importance of refraining from doing *any* article edit on a topic once problems are raised, to avoid making the incidents worse and more convoluted because of changes during the incident discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The citing founders thing is explained here [18]. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to tell I opened another similar incident at Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#gross_WP:COI_on_pushing_of_another_shooted_down_study --Enric Naval (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

Be careful. There are sock puppets of banned users who may seek to involve you in their mischief. See [19] and [20]. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow...I didn't know that he was banned, though I am not surprised at all. He had the same POV pushing and the same tendency to follow me around as some other socks. There have now been many editors who have followed me around who have later been found to be socks. There are now some others who are doing likewise, and I can only wonder if these people are the same single person. DanaUllman^Talk 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: warning

I can't answer right now your message, I g2g --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a tad too cryptic for me. Does "g2g" mean something?

got to go (I'll answer on a little while) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

here I already explained you who can edit the wikipedia. So stop implying that I am somehow not qualified to edit any article, wheter technically or emocionally, it goes against one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia, and is starting to border on a violation of WP:CIVIL so please stop doing it.

your edits after being adviced to take a holiday

Dana, I see you keep posting about the studies at Homeopathy. You were adviced by Jehochman to take a holiday on the homeopathy article and I also did advice you to do that. You should trust more the other editors there to decide what studies are RS for the article:

• this is picking on one of the sources provided by Scientizzle and dismissing the rest as not valid. This sort of behaviour is starting to piss other editors off and is starting to show on their comments. Please just accept that Scientizzle provided sources to back his statement.
• this one? wtf? how many times has WP:UNDUE been discussed on those talk pages?

Please start accepting that you might be wrong about the studies you bring for addition to the articles. While they might be valid on Berkeley and on conferences and congresses, that doesn't mean that they must be valid for sourcing articles on wikipedia. Please really take that holiday and think about the fact that you could be wrong on some points and pushing too hard against editors that disagree with you --Enric Naval (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx...but I think that Jehochman is concerned about me about he KNOWS that there have been MANY socks who were following me around and harrassing me and my work. He probably didn't know that I am fresh from a short holiday and am in good spirits. Thanx for your concern. And please read my response to Scientizzle. Because you seem new to the complexities and history of homeopathic research, I encourage you to avoid jumping to conclusions...and recognize the possibility that your POV may not be right. Even though your POV is in the majority, the majority of physicians/scientists are totally inadequately informed about homeopathy and what the evidence base for it is. The best scientists are humble. Eating humble pie is a good thing. DanaUllman^Talk 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not even understanding why I'm asking you take a holiday..... Ah, whatever, do what you want --Enric Naval (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to wager we are MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more informed about the (lack of ) evidence for homeopathy. It would be nice if you would stop attacking every single person who does not agree you as some sort of a mental deficient simply because we do not blindly adhere to any beliefs about magic water/sugar cubes. Baegis (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana needs to distinghish between bad faith socks and good faith editors trying to help him, that would be at least one step on the right direction --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

At the article on homeopathy, I have begun to engage Scientizzle in a healthy dialogue. I hope that we too can do that. I am broadly familiar with broad body of basic science and clinical science literature in homeopathy, not just the "positive" trials but the "negative" ones...as well as the ones in-between. Enric, you only began editing in the homeopathy sector on wikipedia for 1-2 months now (unless you are another sock who just hasn't been caught yet...please know that I am NOT accusing you of this, and I AGF...but to me, it is curious that you only just began to edit here, and yet, you assume to have greater knowledge on this subject than other editors who have studies this subject for several decades). Can you say with any type of authority that you have a similar broad familiarity with this body of research? Baegis, are you also willing to make a similar assertion? I ask this because I cannot help but sense that you're familiar with a relatively small number of trials in homeopathy and have mostly read abstracts. That said, I would love it if my sense of things is wrong. DanaUllman^Talk 00:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have as much familiarity of the proof for magic water as you do. I remember reading the other day about the new miracle cure, derived from a homeopathic reme.....no, what, that didn't actually happen. Let's be honest, if this stuff "worked" to any degree beyond a placebo, it would literally shake the foundation of medicine. I think a better question is, does Dana understand the placebo effect? Or it's implications for homeopathy? Because that is an infinitely more important area, as opposed to some fringe publications in backwater journals with what could only be described as serious editorial confusion. If anyone needs to eat some humble pie, it is you Dana. Stop with your allusions to infallibility and your personal grandeur. You claim to be an expert in this field, but you have not made any significant contributions that have actually been retained in any articles. You could help out tremendously in this area but you have set your personal goal as to be some sort of prophet for homeopathy in order to get us heathens to change our ways. How has that worked out for you? Baegis (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What Baegis said. Also, Dana appears to be confused by my statement at having more veterany than him on editing wikipedia, and the pillars comment.

Dana, again, anyone can edit the articles, there's no need to be an expert at homeopathy, and your being an expert on RL does not qualify you to dismiss other editor's contributions, understand? Read Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Ownership_examples, you are doing some of the statements listed there. Check also Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Perfection_is_not_required to see how people can contribute in all of sort of small ways.

Also, this statement of yours "but to me, it is curious that you only just began to edit here, and yet, you assume to have greater knowledge on this subject than other editors who have studies this subject for several decades", is plain wrong, I never claimed such a thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please know that I am quite familiar with placebo research. I am particulary intrigued by the body of research that has evaluated concurrently treatment groups, placebo groups, and groups of patients who get neither treatment or placebo (I'm referring to the body of research evaluated by Kiene and Kiene...are you familiar with it?). The results support the ultimate skeptics point of view (you'd appreciate it...as do I). And my references to "humble pie" meant that this is something that we ALL should eat and appreciate. As I said, the best scientists are humble. And yes, I do think that conventional medicine (and all of us) will benefit from having its foundations shaken. DanaUllman^Talk 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, wikipedia is not for shaking any foundation, it only gathers proven information. If you using wikipedia to shake the foundations of anything, then you are using it wrong, as stated by WP:OR and WP:V policies. You first need to stablish research out of wikipedia before it gets cited here --Enric Naval (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you are saying "Unless you can provide evidence for Linde's comments relating with Arsencium album and/or environmental toxicology, your additions will need to be changed or deleted." [21], yet you haven't still answered the evidence on the ‎ probation incidents page about all the objections to the studies you are pushing forward. Dana, you need to address the objections raised by other editors to your proposals and your wordings before engaging on restoring them on the articles. At this moment, I don't think that other editors will agree with those changes or deletions unless you really start addressing some of those issues. So, read Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#Section_I_-_The_Cazin_study_and_Linde_metaanalysis and actually address some of the issues for a change, please.

I have already asked Shoemaker on his talk page to fill the edit summaries for other editors to see what the hell he's doing on his edits. I have looked at his edits and he doesn't seem to be engaging on any deception based on not filling the edit summary. He is just continuing to edit the same section as the last edit where he provided an edit summary, so it looks like he just didn't consider the summary necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

when i started contributing to homeopathy

You said on one comment that you were curious about when I had started homeopathy articles. I don't remember exactly, but I think it was when I decided to check what Wikipedia had to say about homeopathy, and see if I could help with the article.

Checking my contributions, my first edit Homeopathy's page was this one [22], asking people, specially User:Randy Blackamoor, to not misuse the talk page, which, ironically enough , almost a month and a half later is exactly what I am saying that you are doing by pushing those studies. Note that you had also posted on that very same thread, so you were one of the posters that I was asking not to fill the talk page, altought at that moment I had no idea who you were, and I didn't distinguish you from the other editors on the page until much later.

Notice that I was inactive during a lot of time. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Enric...I'm a bit confused by your statement above. The problem that Randy had with the Talk pages was not "using" the Talk but for being totally uncivil. Even many editors with the same POV as Randy's sought to encourage him to AGF and to be civil, but Randy didn't listen. I hope you do. As for "pushing studies," I will take that as a compliment but I do seek to provide references to studies that are RS and notable. Hopefully you too will push research rather than just your own strong POV, and I really hope that you can and will learn and AGF. DanaUllman^Talk 04:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant that you both manage to fill the talk page with discussions that, once the dust has settled, dont't contribute much to improve the article. Of course, you are very right in that your actions have nothing to do with Randy's actions. Randy was uncivil on the extreme, and you aren't uncivil at all, well.... except for, well, doh, suggesting again that I am pushing a strong POV without giving any diff showing where I have done such a thing :P Could you provide some diff of when I pushed some point of view that wasn't NPOV? Maybe I did so at some place, after all --Enric Naval (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

please try to cool off

Dana, this removal of sourced text had nothing to do with the edit summary justifying it [23], and the editor justified his changes on the incident reporting page. Please, think again about following Jehochman's advice to take a holiday from editing homeopathy articles. I fear that you are taking this too personally, please try to take a rest before you enter an edit war over this and get yourself blocked. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DanaUllman for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Enric Naval (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

attacking the messenger

Answered here --Enric Naval (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

proposed BLP change

You will probably be interesed in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia:BLP_subject_response. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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 [24] 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) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been filed involving you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman Appropriate links will also be given on the various pages that I am aware you edit, in order to give all a say. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I know the case has only been open for 2 days, but you might want to drop by and maybe give some evidence or workshop some solutions. Just so you know. Baegis (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I make you aware that, on the arbitraton case, I criticize the same post as Scientizzle below, see [Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#civilly_worded_strong_accusations_of_bad_faith_that_are_never_punished_.28Dana.29 here]. You might want to update your evidence to take this into account --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not good.

Dana, your recent statement at Talk:Potassium dichromate is, in my opinion, highly inappropriate.

I have not yet offered an opinion at the ArbCom case because I am of mixed feelings (I'm also just not a fan of beurocratic tedium). First off, I don't necessarily think the encyclopedia is better off blocking an expert of your qualification from providing input. On the other hand, it appears your day job--promoting homeopathy--may be spilling over too much into Wikipedia.

Are you getting piled upon? Perhaps, and perhaps unduly so. But it's clear that your track record of repetitively hammering certain things for inclusion or removal (or a certain wording, etc.), in spite of clear consensus against, is damaging your ability to do anything actually useful. This leads progressively to stronger pushback, and degrades merit-based discussions as both sides snipe.

This recent offering absolutely won't help. Please reconsider your words, and your editing strategies. — Scientizzle 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment here, Scientizzle. I have already responded to your thoughts here [25]. I am not clear why YOU took this personally. I certainly was NOT referring to you. When I made reference to "editors", I certainly wasn't referring to every editor on wikipedia or every editor who had commented in that Talk page (heck, there were several editors who wanted inclusion of this study). Because you are one of the few skeptics who wanted to include reference to the CHEST study, what feedback do you have for me on how I can convey the reasons why I think that its inclusion is appropriate? Also, I'm curious...did you contact OffTheFence or Shoemaker's Dream and give them feedback on what seems to be stonewalling, and if not, why not? Help teach me. DanaUllman^Talk 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle, I have just re-read my statement at recent statement at Talk:Potassium dichromate, and I have no idea why you considered that statement "highly inappropriate" or why YOU took it personally. It was neither in my words or my intent to say or even suggest that ALL editors were showing bad faith. I assume that you mis-read something because I want to assume good faith with you. In any case, I still don't get how you refer to that posting as "highly inappropriate." If I missed something here, please explain. I'm open. Without an adequate explanation, I will assume that you're making a mountain out of a non-hill to try to embarrass me (but that's neither fair or accurate). DanaUllman^Talk 22:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[I've been working on this reply for a few hours, on and off, while I tried to get some work done. In that time, I've received and read all of your messages, and I've been updating the whole thing as I go to respond to specific points.]

Dana, while I appreciate that your complaint may not have been directed at me, it still doesn't address the underlying issues:

• The implicit message of my response above (and at Talk:Potassium dichromate) is that the broad brush of "you and some other editors" is vague and reasonably interpreted to include those of varying positions and levels of activity. That I might be part of the "stonewalling" crowd seems a reasonable assumption based on my vocal disagreement that Frass et al. is worthy of encyclopedic discussion. In any case, my reaction (or who was targeted) isn't really the point...
• Most importantly, the claim that "good faith" necissitates that those you disagree with should "finally admit that this information is notable and worthy of reference in the article" is an outrageous misinterpretation of the policy. There have been many, many reasons proffered as to why Frass et al. should not be included, based on policy, and based on editorial discretion; the consensus is blindingly obvious. To make explicit that disagreeing with your claims is synonymous with acting in bad faith is, I reassert, highly inappropriate. And this isn't a mole hill or "non-hill", it's a fundamental concern that has been raised regarding your editing, and it's textbook tendentious editing.
• I do not view the relevant recent contributions of OffTheFence or Shoemaker's Dream there as stonewalling. I am now firmly of the opinion that continually beating the dead horse of this study on that talk page is more disruptive for a couple of reasons:
  • The study's inclusion has been rejected by a solid consensus on several grounds. Your seeming rejection of that reality puts you at odds with Wikipedia norms and results in circular arguments of enormous tedium, further degrading the discourse.
  • The interpersonal implications of these actions are reasonably suggestive that you are willing to discard this Wikipedia policy when it's not "going your way", which plays perfectly into the hands of those that wish to label you as a POV-pusher driven by a COI. It appears hypocritical to quote any of the policy pages to an "adversary" whilst seemingly ignoring one yourself.
• The amount of words used up on the discussion of this paper probably now far exceeds the actual paper itself. Your position regarding inclusion is very clear, and you needn't worry about further clarification. I've stated my positions on the paper in as clear a manner as possible, and I don't really feel that re-hashing that is necessary, nor a good use of anyone's time, particularly mine...it's all right there on the talk page.

— Scientizzle 00:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Did you get my mail? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In the light of the thread below I want to make it clear that I contacted Dana by email and not the other way round. Dana never contacted me, he only replied to my email. I left the above message to certify that it was the owner of my account who asked him privately about a specific point on which I wanted clarity fast. (This point was unrelated to the arbitration, Dana made clear he didn't think it such a big deal, and now someone else has solved the problem without my assistance anyway.) --Hans Adler (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Dana, this is canvassing. It is against WP policies to go soliciting for reinforcements for your viewpoint. Please reconsider your post. Baegis (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban (Homeopathy)

You have persisted in disrupting homeopathy-related topics, including tendentious arguments, soapboxing, and accusations against other editors. For example, your behavior (both over the long-term and more recently) at Potassium dichromate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is completely unacceptable. You are well aware of the community standards. You have been clearly informed what is not acceptable within this often-heated topic area. You are have been notified of Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation, and previously subject to its sanctions. Given your history, you are banned from all homeopathy related topics, broadly construed, for three months. I do not intend this ban to extend to arbitration pages. Vassyana (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Enric Naval (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

your comment "you may not be familiar with the gaming of the system that some editors are using to block and mute me."[26] is making an unwarranted assumption of bad faith on other editors. Please don't make broad brush vague descriptions of other editors having bad faith towards you. Use specific examples with diffs instead or point to a section of a page where the attacks are evident so that other editors can evaluate your claims and see if they are warranted or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've taken some time away and discussed the issue with a couple of sysops for a sanity check. I will not be repealing the topic ban. After review, it seems like a more severe sanction would actually be appropriate. Part of what is distressing to me is that you show no indication that you accept that your actions are in any way problematic. (That is not to say that you're the only one at fault, as the topic area is plagued with issues, but "he started it" or "she's breaking the rules" are not valid defenses.) I sincerely beseech you to reconsider the approach and path that you have taken. Please review the advice and warnings that you have received regarding your participation in this area of the wiki, especially from uninvolved parties. It has been made abundantly clear to you what is a problem and why. You are obviously more than intelligent and social enough to make the necessary adjustments in your approach. You are very knowledgeable and eloquent, having quite a bit you could contribute to Wikipedia. However, you need to make serious course corrections, as your current contributing pattern is much more disruptive than productive. Even within the article Homeopathy by itself, there are numerous areas that could use improvement, revision and expansion that are far less likely to encounter opposition and confrontations. I find it unfortunate that a knowledgeable contributor such as yourself has not found a way to participate in a constructive and cooperative fashion, and I sincerely hope that may change. Vassyana (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In light of your topic ban, why don't you work on this article for a while? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't extend that far. In theory you can still pester individual users as much as you want, or as far as their patience extends. Good night. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My talkpage

My talkpage is not the place for you and other editors to debate what sources should go in the homeopathy article. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

bad faith assumptions

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment "I certainly realize that there are a lot of editors who truly hate homeopathy, and therefore, don't like me"[27] is a broad-brush assumption of bad faith on several editors --Enric Naval (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also probably false syllogism (i.e., "hatred" of homeopathy need not translate to "dislike" of any particular editor). That said, Enric, I would urge you to consider more hospitable ways of bringing up disagreements. Templated warnings aren't very warm or friendly; anyone placing one of those on my page is bound to get a negative reaction from me, regardless of how "right" they are. If you use your own words to express your concerns, it will come off as a much more sincere and thoughtful approach, in my opinion. I think people are more willing to respond to a personalized message, rather than a templated warning. Antelan^talk 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I know about Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars, but Dana has been already warned with regular messages at other pages, and his regular assumptions of bad faith have been analyzed on the arbitration case. This is just the case where you simply start serving templates until the editor either finally stops his misbehaviour or reaches uw-xxx5, in which case you just ask for him to get blocked for a short period of time since he hasn't stopped after harsh warnings. It's sad, but Dana is past the point where you expect that he will pay attention to anything less than a block by an admin --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(damn, I should have used {{uw-npa3}} instead of {{Agf3}}. Oh, well, next time) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Lancet editorial 1994 and the BMJ editorial 2000

I am posting the entirety of the 1994 Lancet editorial that accompanied the third (of what later became 4 trials using homeopathic medicines in the treatment of respiratory allergies), and under this is the entirety of the 2000 BMJ editorial that accompanied the fourth trial. Despite the strong evidence from these high-impact journals and despite the editorial support that acknowledged these studies as having "exceptional rigour," the anti-homeopathy editors stonewall their inclusion on wikipedia. When will this stonewalling stop?

"If Petr Skrabanek were alive, we could expect to be chided for publishing this week’s paper by Reilly et al. The basis for scientific thinking he declared is rational scepticism: “Irrational skepticism is characterized by an inability to accept the category of the absurd.” And what could be more absurd than the notion that a substance is therapeutically active in dilutions so great that the patient is unlikely to receive a single molecule of it? Reilly and his homeopathic co-workers gave such substances to patients with allergic asthma and detected activity—even though hardly the degree of activity that would impress a respiratory allopathist. They invite us to choose between two interpretations this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of homeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo. Yes, the dilution principle of homeopathy is absurd; so the reason for any therapeutic effect presumably lies elsewhere. But no, carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers. How will they respond to Reilly’s challenge? And will Reilly now treat us to a comparison of high dilutions and low?"

Please note that this editorial highlights the "exceptional rigour" to these trials, and it insists that "work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers."

When the Taylor and Reilly team published their fourth (!) trial (this one in the BMJ),[MA Taylor, D Reilly, RH Llewellyn-Jones, et al., Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis with Overview of Four Trial Series, BMJ (August 19, 2000)321:471-476] the editorial that accompanied it asserted:

"Homoeopathic dilutions may be better than placebo. Many people consider that any benefits of homoeopathy must be due to the placebo effect because the medication is diluted beyond Avogadro's number. Taylor et al (p 471) tested this placebo hypothesis in a randomised controlled trial in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Patients in both groups reported similar subjective improvement, but those in the homoeopathic group had significantly greater improvements in objective measurements of nasal airflow than did the placebo group. The authors believe that when these results are taken together with the findings of three similar previous trials, it may be time to confront the conclusion that homoeopathy and placebo differ. This may be more plausible than the conclusion that their trials have produced serial false positive results." BMJ 2000;321;0. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7259.0/b DanaUllman^Talk 15:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The BMJ editorial is from 2000 (not 2004 as stated in the first sentence of this section)[error to which this referred has been corrected], so does not consider, for example, this[28] later and larger study which failed to confirm the earlier findings. The first sentence as quoted here is not part of the actual editorial, but its title, or headline. The body of the editorial is clearly reporting Reilly and his team's belief that "it may be time to confront the conclusion that homoeopathy and placebo differ", rather than the editorial opinion of the Journal. Brunton (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanx, the 2004 date was a simple typo, and I have now fixed it. As for the BMJ editorial, the LAST sentence in the editorial is NOT the words of Reilly. How or why you would or could say otherwise is evidence of more stonewalling. As for that larger study, Reilly has commented on this trial as NOT being a replication trial due to many differences in the design, its inadequate repetition of the remedy--just 3 doses--over 3 months (this problem alone is a deal-breaker). This trial was not a replication at all, nor was it an adequate test of homeopathy. Also, IF you actually read the study, you would also know that the researchers found that the responses that the homeopathic patients experienced a different ebb and flow of their symptoms from that of the placebo group, suggesting that some type of response was occurring, though the inadequate number of doses of the medicine didn't allow a more full therapeutic response. I know that you knew about these serious problems with this study in previous discussions that we have had, and I am surprised that you brought it up again. In any case, the number of patients in the four Reilly trials exceeded those of the 2004 trial. DanaUllman^Talk 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, that last sentence is hardly a ringing endorsement of homoeopathy. And if the journal is capable of publishing what you regard as a clearly inadequate trial of homoeopathy, then perhaps its editorial is not the best place to look for reliable opinion about homoeopathy. In any case, neither editorial gives quite the sort of support that you are claiming, unless read through somewhat rose-tinted spectacles (I'm not saying this is intentional, there's probably a bit of confirmation bias here - perhaps even on both sides).

Have there been any independent replications of Reilly's results in the 8 years since his BMJ paper? Brunton (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly notable enough when there are 4 randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials (2 of which were published in the Lancet and 1 in the BMJ) and where there are supportive editorials in both publications. Thank you for confirming how you stonewall RS, V, notable research with high-impact secondary sources. DanaUllman^Talk 02:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that all four studies were produced by the same team - independent replication is important in an area like this (and a replication of the results does not necessarily have to result from use of exactly the same method), and that the editorials don't give the kind of support you imagine they do. What we have is a series of studies by a single team in a controversial area.

Can you answer my question about independent replication, or are you just going to make accusations of stonewalling? Brunton (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

First, can you point me to the wikipedia policy that requires something more than 4 trials plus editorial support? But because you've opened the door to "replications" that are not "exactly the same method," my answer is YES: (1) Kim LS, Riedlinger JE, Baldwin CM, Hilli L, Khalsa SV, Messer SA, Waters RF. Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis using homeopathic preparation of common allergens in the southwest region of the US: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Ann Pharmacother. 2005 Apr;39(4):617-24. (2) Launsø L, Kimby CK, Henningsen I, Fønnebø V. An exploratory retrospective study of people suffering from hypersensitivity illness who attend medical or classical homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy (2006) 95, 73-80. (3) Wiesenauer, M, and Gaus, W, "Double-blind Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of the

Homeopathic Preparation of Galphimia Potentisation D6, Galphimia Dilution 10-6, and Placebo on Pollinosis," Arzneim.-Forsch/Drug Research, 35(II), 11(1985):1745-7 (this trial was the 7th trial by this group of researchers). Thanx for asking. DanaUllman^Talk 13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The first one is another small study reporting "preliminary findings indicat[ing] potential benefits", the second was unblinded and "based on the patients’ retrospective, self-reported effectiveness of the treatments" and while I haven't tracked down the third it doesn't really count as a replication of Reilly's work as it was published in 1985. Brunton (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Brunton...but can you point me to a wiki-policy that states that 3 high-quality trials in high impact journals, along with accompanied editorial support is inadequate for reference on wikipedia? This is what I mean by stonewalling. We all want more research, but according to the Lancet, this research is worthy of Lancet readers, and according to the BMJ, efficacy from homeopathic medicines is a more likely explanation than 4 false-positive trials. DanaUllman^Talk 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Lancet and BMJ publish large numbers of papers that they presumably consider "worthy" of their readers. These trials are a series of comparatively small studies for which their authors have claimed results that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions (see WP:REDFLAG) - to quote David Reilly "either homeopathy works or controlled trials don't"[29]; however, the only attempt at independent replication (i.e. that references the Reilly studies and tries to repeat their findings) of which I am aware at the moment failed to show the same results according to its conclusions (to suggest that it showed otherwise is surely OR). While this study was criticised, it was also defended by its authors.

And, once more, the editorials do not say quite what you think they do. There has been recent discussion of the Lancet editorial elsewhere[30] (shortly before you posted it here, in fact). The BMJ editorial doesn't say, as you've just claimed, "according to the BMJ, efficacy from homeopathic medicines is a more likely explanation than 4 false-positive trials"; it says (my emphasis): "The authors believe that when these results are taken together with the findings of three similar previous trials, it may be time to confront the conclusion that homoeopathy and placebo differ. This may be more plausible than the conclusion that their trials have produced serial false positive results." There is an important difference between "is" and "may be", for a start. Brunton (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Slow down Brunton, you are mis-reading what I wrote. Although I used the word "is", I also used the words "is a more likely explanation." By using the words "more likely", I am not making this statement into a hardened stance, and thus I presented it correctly/accurately. And the BMJ editorial said these words, while you previously asserted that only the authors suggested that the medicines had an effect, when in fact, the editorial suggested that it did too. Your strong POV is leading you to mis-read and mis-interpret facts. As for the Lewith "replication," please note what it was on the top of page 5: "What is already known on this topic: Homeopathic remedies probably have an effect that is greater than placebo." It should be noted that only ONE of the four trials that Reilly conducted used homeopathic doses of house dust mite as the primarily method of treatment. This means that the other 3 trials stand as valid. DanaUllman^Talk 00:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lewith's before the fact assumptions don't alter the fact that his trial failed to reproduce Reilly's findings. It appears from what you say here that there hasn't been any attempt at replicating Reilly's potentially earth-shaking findings from the other three trials (if they were measuring different things, doesn't that have some effect on the meta-analysis?).

The BMJ editorial said "may be more plausible", not "is more plausible" ("more plausible" meaning near enough "a more likely explanation"). But whichever way you read it, this is at best very weak support for homoeopathy, and I'm almost surprised that you are attaching such significance to it. But then in the past you've even claimed this letter as evidence of support for homoeopathy.

By the way, I'm not sure that it is possible to stonewall on a user talk page. It's not as if you need to achieve consensus for what you put on your user page, is it? Brunton (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Brunton, the fact that the Lancet AND the BMJ have published Reilly's research shows its notability. The fact that they both provided editorial comment on it provides stronger notability. Whether there is or isn't additional replication doesn't diminish its notability. Editors should mention this work, as well as Lewith's effort to replicate it (along with some critique of this "replication") As for that Darwin letter, I quote that entire letter that Darwin wrote in my book, The H.omeopathic Revolution, and acknowledged Darwin's skepticism...but I also note that he acknowledged that, despite his skepticism, Gully's treating were curing people (as Darwin noted that this girl did recover...and Darwin himself never again experienced those fainting spells, spots before his eyes, heart palpitations and select other symptoms which he had had for 2-12 years. His nausea was only temporarily paliated, but previously Darwin wrote that he was dying (and that was 10 years BEFORE he wrote his seminal work). If your goal was really NPOV, you would bring the Reilly's research to the article, but you're not: you have not yet brought any study to the article that had a positive result, though I really look forward to the day that you prove me wrong (I really do). DanaUllman^Talk 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

You are under a topic ban, broadly construed. Cease using your page to advocate and circumvent the ban. Such will not be tolerated, and neither will meatpuppetry. If it is necessary, you will be blocked and your talk page fully protected. Vassyana (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I respect you and your history of participation on wikipedia. However, I am totally confused about your accusation of meatpuppetry. Please explain or please apologize. Please note that I have gotten mixed messages about what the meaning of my topic ban is. As you can see by this diff, Tim Vickers told me that it does not extend to user pages.[31] Please know that my comments on my own user page were made in the good faith assumption that it was allowed. Because of your status and history with wikipedia, I assume that your message is accurate (except for the meatpuppetry part), and I will honor it. However, if you consider Tim's advice to be more accurate, please let me know. I will post this at your user-page to make sure that you got this message. DanaUllman^Talk 00:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dana, I suspect that the suggestion of meatpuppetry might come from the fact that you appear above to be encouraging me (or others) to make edits to the homeopathy page. Brunton (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dana, this message from Vassyana to Tim Vickers may answer your question, in part. Antelan^talk 13:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)