Hello NATTO! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave me a message!:D Happy Editing!
Thanks for finding the link. It sounded correct enough, but I couldn't find precisely that wording. Good you found it. Verifiability is important, especially in criticisms of living persons. Even then one must be careful.
Jimbo Wales has some interesting things to say about criticisms of living persons:
"..... editors who don't stop to think that reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." - Jimmy Wales [1]
"If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as [citation needed], please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page." - Jimmy Wales[2]
Steve Bennett wrote:
> I'm happy to be corrected, but I was under the
> impression that as long as we can convey that the information is not
> guaranteed accurate (by the use of cite tags), then "speculative"
> information is better than none.
Absolutely not. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. - Jimmy Wales[3]
Philip Welch wrote:
> On May 18, 2006, at 2:48 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
>> If we don't want unsourced material, why have we tolerated it so long?
>>
>> This could be a change in what's considered acceptable rather than an
>> eternal law. Early in Wikipedia's development, we took what we could
>> get. Now that we have a crapload of content, we can set stricter rules.
Absolutely.
We have how many new articles a day? If people had the good sense to nuke 100 articles a day, just on the grounds of being BAD in the sense we are discussing (having unsourced claims about living people which would be libel if false), our growth rate would hardly suffer at all.
We are a massively powerful text generation engine. People have to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious. Crap is crap. Yank it. - Jimmy Wales[4]
Just to clarify. i noticed that tehre are some people very close to this subject commenting on this page. i had never heard of barratt untill recently and I'm not even sure how I stumbled across the page. i would like to think the comments i have made to date are from an outside perspective. Please don't think i am in any camp with regard to this issue. David D.(Talk)08:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read your edits and find them well sourced; too bad some others have a specific point of view which causes them to delete factual and well documented statements. RalphLendertalk16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. To make sure I understand: You have invited two editors, one at each end of the spectrum for a second opinion, I assume on the ABMS data. So now we have Fyslee, yourself and one of the two invited editors, an myself.... NATTO22:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am staying out for a while since I have said my piece, but I am interested to hear their opinions. Tim and Peter are both working on the homeopathy article. Peter is trained in homeopathy, Tim is a scientist. They have both worked together to make the article as NPOV as possible. I thought it would be more productive to ask people who are familiar with the alternative medicine field. David D.(Talk)22:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, below is the message i left on their respective talk pages.
Hi Tim and Peter, I am wondering if you could both inject a second opinion with respect to an ongoing discussion at the Stephen Barrett page. I have chosen to seek your opinion since you both represent differing views with respect to alternative medicine but are both reasonable editors, as proven by your excellent collaboration on the homeopathy page. I would like you to focus on one paragraph only. It is in the Licensure_and_credentials and reads as follows:
Barrett's critics cite that he failed part of his medical board certification exams in 1967 and never retook them as evidence that he cannot claim to be a medical expert.[5] When Barrett retired in 1993 about 81% of physicians were Board certified according to the American Board of Medical Specialties.(PDF).
There are two schools of thought here:
The first is that the latter sentence is relevant to whether Barratt is a medical expert. It is verifiable data, no claim is made that the data supports the views of the critics or not, that is up to the reader.
The second is that the latter sentence should be removed since it seems to be original research.
There has been much discussion on this topic both currently and in the archive, one of many sections in the archive is here. I feel the discussion has reached a stalemate, although, possibly an injection of new ideas could lay this to bed so we can move onto other parts of the article. Thanks for your time.
Howdy, I wanted to encourage you to discuss the changes you were making on the Stephen Barrett page. I put my reasons for reverting the changes there. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page, User_talk:TeaDrinker, if you need ot get in touch with me. Sincce I reverted it twice, I will give the obligatory link to the three revert rule. We are both bound by it, of course. Thanks, --TeaDrinker23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Teadrinker. Please stop reversing my edits without even taking the time to check the facts. This is a guerilla attitude and eminently biased. Please provide valid reasons. NATTO23:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I realize, rereading my message, that I was unclear. I started a discussion on the talk page, here specifically to discuss the changes you made. I was trying to encourage you to contribute to that discussion, but realize now I did not include a link to it. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks, --TeaDrinker23:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Teadrinker. If that is the way you encourage Wiki editors to discuss issues you really need to work on it. You just drop in from nowhere and start bulk reversing and then claim you want to encourage discussion.... You can well report the 3RR with that sort of behaviour NATTO 23:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I was unclear. I reverted to the prior version because I thought the edits you were making were not neutral point of view. I did not, however, want to do so without discussion. As such, I wrote my reasons for the revert on the talk page of the article, Talk:Stephen Barrett. I did not, of course, revert simply to encourage discussion. The purpose of my message was to let you know that (a) I had made the change and (b) there was a talk page discussion about the edits. My link to WP:3RR is simply cursory, in case you had not seen the rule before. I will, of course, abide by it. Thanks again for the work, --TeaDrinker00:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Teadrinker. The above example is just one. I appreciate your point of view however if there was an identical item critical of Barrett placed twice in the same article, you would likely say it is redundant... Thank you for acknowleding that it takes time to do edits. Of course if you had taken the time to do it the same way instead of simply choosing to bulk reverse than we would not be having this discussion. By the way I have also posted a reply on the talk page of the article. NATTO 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Teadrinker. No your answer is clear. It is the way you handled it that I question. You have done wholesale reversals of edits including the ones which were done for technical reasons or to bring more balance to the item. Ex: Barrett has been accused by Tim Bolen (who, in his own words, is "hired by clients to deal with their public relations component of when they may be attacked by medical board or similar entity." [14]) of bias, and being part of a conspiracy to suppress innovative forms of treatment. [15] AND Tim Bolen himself has no educational qualifications beyond High School and, in his words, is "hired by clients to deal with their public relations component of when they may be attacked by medical board or similar entity." If you had done selective reversal that would habe been appropriate but that is not waht you have done. NATTO 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I can appreciate how this seems to be difficult, since you put so much time into making the edits. It is generally fairly difficult to selectively revert changes (what I was doing was restoring an earlier version of the article, then editing it to keep some of your changes). You make a valid point about Bolen, however removing reasons why he may not be a reputable source probably should still be in the section, in my view. I still think we can come up with a good solution on the talk page. Thanks again for the note. --TeaDrinker00:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Teadrinker. The above example is just one. I appreciate your point of view however if there was an identical item critical of Barrett placed twice in the same article, you would likely say it is redundant... Thank you for acknowleding that it takes time to do edits. Of course if you had taken the time to do it the same way instead of simply choosing to bulk reverse than we would not be having this discussion. By the way I have also posted a reply on the talk page of the article. NATTO 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TeaDrinker"
thanks for your comments about folks like barrett and homeopathy; i do not think it has so much to do with the nature of matter as the nature of hatred and a deeply ingrained prejudice founded, as they are, upon an unbending, dogmatic adherance to scientific materialism as an absolute belief system that is neutral [joke!], profit-free [joke!] and universal in its application. These breed an intolerant arrogance bordering on religious zealotry...such people amount to a fraction of 0.1% of humanity yet they believe their case is proven and the rest of humanity should wake up and join their ranks. Well it just aint gonna happen. Life is far richer & more complex [thankfully] than the simplistic models science geeks would have it and that disappoints them hugely. Things like alt. med. enrage them because they see their precious belief system seriously challenged. They refuse to accept these therapies work and then call it placebo...but there can be no such thing as placebo if their molecular paradigm is so absolute! How can placebo be based on 'suggestion' if there is no 'mind' there are just molecular movements in the brain? their paradigm does not adequately cover very much of the 'real world' they allege to be in and preach about. best wishes in your efforts. Peter morrell07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, sadly your analysis is correct. Science in itself is only a tool with it's limitations. It is a valid tool as long as it is used properly. There are those in search of dogmatism that have made it a religion in the same way that they have used other religions in the past to negate true awareness and spiritual growth. Stay above the fray Peter :-) NATTO 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_morrell"
I'd like to understand why you removed the link with the comment "External links - removed link to the page saying click on *** to order from Amazon.com as per WP:EL)". I can't find any such link on the page. --Ronz04:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did now - I was a bit confused with all the rearrangement. How strongly are you against the link you removed? --Ronz19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I like how you arranged them over what I did. I only added them to the top because it left the rest of the organization intact without adding yet another category. As for WP:EL, I'm still debating between the added value and WP:IAR in that context vs the fact that the books in the list do have links to Amazon. --Ronz20:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you could come up with 1-2 references that show QW attacking or unfairly characterizing Weil (or Pauling) and perhaps a 2-5 word phrase, that would be a better format.--I'clast12:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Please do, since that will provide an opportunity to provide Quackwatch's arguments on those points. Just open that door.....;-) But, on second thought, we're trying to write an encyclopedia, not conduct a discussion group. The article is about Quackwatch. If you really want to do that, do it on their articles. That way, if you really want to invite Barrett et al into those articles, just do what you are suggesting. You'll get the whole scientific community on your backs, point-by-(excruciatingly revealing)-point. So far all the criticism you have provided on the various articles has only resulted in enlargening them and strenghtening them, for which we are actually grateful. Call it unintended "collateral benefit" to the cause of exposing quackery and fringe science...;-) Without it we might have settled for short and factual articles. (Maybe this is a result of too much mercury exposure? Dangerous stuff! It keeps one from seeing "the big picture." To see it, just look at the articles before and after you got involved.) Have a nice day. -- Fyslee13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above, apparently bias, (in)accuracy, (im)balance are minor concerns once a certain POV is established. As for the "the whole scientific community", QW is already missing silent portions of the scientifc community, albeit many only express their opinion after retirement, if ever. The QW article before? the word hagiology comes to mind.--I'clast13:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we wouldn't want that kind of thing. It's a controversial site, and it can't be any other way. Any website or anyone who has an opinion will risk getting involved in controversy, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. That's one of the ways we learn. Studying both sides of a controversy is stimulating and helps us to developed informed biases, rather than blind prejudices. (Read my introduction for more on that subject.) Controversies should be mentioned and linked, but the article isn't the place for editors to continue the discussion on their own account, or on the account of others. Doing that is unencyclopedic and would end up reproducing the website and portions of other websites, ending up with a long, rambling, and argumentative article. We need to stay on-topic. Mention the controversies, link to them and the subjects - including wikilinks - and then let readers do their own studying outside of the article itself. The article should just mention things. It plants the seeds, but it isn't our job to do the harvesting. (If you were a fundamentalist Christian - like I have been - you'd recognize that that is the work of the Holy Spirit....;-) -- Fyslee14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...Mention the controversies, link to them and the subjects - including wikilinks" this is similar to my thinking with the suggestion to Natto of 2-5 word phrases with 1-2 superscripted references to Natto earlier. I do like cleaner prose, but significant contention points need some kind of ' * '. In some cases I think that better examples could be given, e.g. I think Pauling is a poor example (i.e. QW bragging that it shot & skinned the rarest, largest of a protected species to both fed'l and state game agents after running the fleece up the flagpole would seem kind of ill advised, even in the most anti-govt woods). We've been working on this article hot & heavy for several weeks, things have been getting a little warm again this weekend. The QW article is in pretty good shape now, perhaps we should try to slow to small, occasional edits this week. Its still Sunday here, so let's think positive thoughts about our neighbors. Pace.--I'clast23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'Clast, Sound advice. Thank you and enjoy what is left of your week-end :-)NATTO 23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Do me a favor and check out Stephen Barrett article. Fyslee has started an edit war there and I think the links he deleted are unjustified. What do you think? Please revert his edit if you agree it is unjustified. Levine211222:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We had an exchange a while ago regarding User:Sarner's edits of Barrett and other pages. He has re-initiated an edit war on the Bowlby article. In the past he was sanctioned for this and banned from editing that page for 48 hours. He is also doing the same thing on the Candace Newmaker article. He refused to follow Wikipedia dispute resolution practices by considering a poll, mediation, or another collaborative form of reaching consensus. In fact, on both articles, there is consensus regarding the issues, but he refused to accept that. I wonder if you might be able to offer some assistance here. Thanks.RalphLendertalk16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How mature for a dentist to respond in this manner. I very considerately bring this discussion to your talk page, rather than doing it where you made your original attempt to denigrate me, and this is the response I get.... Very telling. -- Fyslee05:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what a display of knowledge about homeopathy.... It is well known that low dilutions homeopathic remedies do have measurable amounts of the substance diluted....NATTO08:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[6][reply]
"Well known" is your POV. Maybe some people think that, but truly homeopathic dilutions are typically beyond Avogadro's number, and therefore the chance of there being a single molecule of the original substance in the "medicine" is quite infinitisimal, and hardly measureable. If easily measurable, then we're talking about "low dilutions," and not real homeopathic dilutions as typically used. -- Fyslee10:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All homeopathic remedies begin with a mother tincture. You are wrong in your assumption. But again since you seem to know everything about everything and need to have the last word on everything. Be my guest....NATTO01:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they all start with a mother tincture, which is the "active ingredient." By the time all the succussing (diluting) has been accomplished, reaching the dilution levels typically used, there is no active ingredient remaining. This fact is considered problematic to scientists, but homeopaths meet this argument by claiming that the water (or alcohol) "remembers" its contact with the active substance, and that it is therefore still effective as a remedy.
Regardless of whether one believes this or not, one is still left with the fact that homeopathic remedies do not show any effects above and beyond what one can expect from a placebo substance. IOW there is no significant biological effect on serious illness, but of course some very temporary subjective psychological effects that might make a person feel and believe they have been treated successfully, which, in the case of serious illness, may be a fatal delusion.
You state that my "assumption" is wrong. What assumption are you referring to? We all make conscious and subconscious assumptions, so please enlighten me. -- Fyslee05:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am Alan, or "alan2012", a sometime contributor to Wikipedia -- e.g. the Barrett/Quackwatch
page and (last summer) the Orthomolecular Med page.
Actually I am a naive, inexperienced contributor who is still trying to figure things out around here.
Lots to learn and I am not sure how much detail I want to try to absorb. Just figured out tonight
(duhhhh) that I should SIGN IN before I do an edit! Ha. I'll get better at it.
Anyway, would you mind dropping me a line by email -- aelewis AT provide DOT net
I would appreciate it. There are several folk I would like to be able to communicate with, but
the Wiki thing still feels like something of a maze to me.
On May 7th of this year, at 14:37, the user page User:Dr Spam (MD) was created. Within a period of 48 hours, User:Dr Spam (MD) had placed approximately 55 barnstars on user pages and user talk pages. Many recipients doubted the sincerity of the sentiments behind these barnstars, in part because of the comments placed by Dr Spam on the barnstars. A sampling of the reasons that Dr. Spam offered for presenting barnstars to editors:
Hi - I am putting this here in case there's trouble later. Please accept this tireless barnstar thing for all of your wiki-activity. Thanks. User:Dr Spam (MD) 16:08, 11 May 2007
Hi I am leaving you with this barnstar for you to reflect carefully on. I will provide the citation in a few days once you have had the opportunity to consider why I might think that you deserve it. Peace User:Dr Spam (MD)16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for all of your fantastic editing / writing: you are obviously a genius of our day, shining like the brightest barnstar against a dark barnnight in these new and difficult wiki-times. I therefore award you the surreal barnstar (I can't get the other barnstars to work properly - my apologies.) Please note that you have no right to remove the barnstar, for it is sacred. LEAVE WELL ALONE! Many thanks.
I am awarding you a surreal barnstar because you obviously deserve it! Keep up the good work - don't slacken off, it'll get harder before it gets easier!
Hy my cat (the fat white one) is awarding you this barnstar of diligence because he doesn't eat fish either. He just likes to eat biscuits - or so he says. But how then does he get so fat????
Occasionally Dr. Spam's comments did appear sincere (if vague), but a review of the record indicates that sincere-appearing comments were generally generated during a massive cut-and-paste session. There were also many barnstars presented with no comments at all, and even more that User:Dr Spam (MD) presented without signing his name to indicate from whom the award was coming. And some barnstars, praising the editing skills of the recipient, were awarded to editors with one solitary edit to their name.
In response, once this pattern of apparent insincerity was established, a few experienced editors asked Dr. Spam to desist from barnstar spamming, in the belief that randomly awarding barnstars devalues the entire barnstar program. (Indeed, so random was the placement of barnstars, that some were even placed on wiki accounts that had not been active for over a year.) Dr. Spam has now stopped, presumably recognizing that his efforts were not appreciated by the majority of editors.
Most of the barnstars placed by Dr. Spam during his May campaign have been voluntarily removed by the editors on whose pages they were placed. You are receiving this notice because Dr. Spam's barnstar still remains on your page. If you feel that Dr. Spam's barnstar spamming was a form of mockery, you may choose to remove it yourself. But if the way this barnstar was "awarded" does not bother you, you are of course free to keep it on your page. After all, it isyour page. This notification was simply for your information. HuskyHuskie14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
