User talk:DigitalC/archive 3

Notification

The RFC was very clear. There was consensus that spinal manipulation is relevant to chiropractic. Editors should avoid arguing on the grounds that there is OR in chiropractic based on general SM research. If editors still have concerns about OR it should not be based on claims that SM is not related when there is a clear consensus that SM is related according to the closing administrator. Editors need to abide by the closing of the RFC. Here are more comments from the closing administrator.[1][2] Please abide. QuackGuru 22:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You have previously been asked not to edit my talk page. Please stay away from it.[Please stay away from my talk page, you are not welcome here]. The RfC in question clearly stated that it was "not about the OR policy or other policies", and was "NOT about any relation between generic spinal manipulation and chiropractic spinal manipulation" which is the crux of the OR matter. Please do not attempt to misrepresent the RfC. DigitalC (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Elonka I can comment at user talkpages. This is part of dispute resolution. Addtionally, another admin has clearly explained how to proceed with spinal manipulation. The admin closed the recent RFC as consensus that spinal manipulation is relevant to chiropractic. Please respect the decision by the closing administrator. Here are more recommendations the admin made on how to proceed.[3][4][5] Part of your comments claim it is WP:OR to use spinal manipulation. When SM is core to chiropractic it is directly relevant. QuackGuru 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my comments, especially on my userpage. My comments claim it is WP:OR to use general spinal manipulation research (not chiropractic spinal manipulation) on Chiropractic. This is NOT what the RfC was about. Please abide by the closing admin's subsequent comments. DigitalC (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it OR when spinal manipulation is directly relevant? QuackGuru 00:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before, and are unlikely to make any progress here. Please do not post here unless you have something new to say. Again, general spinal manipulation is not directly related to chiropractic, chiropractic spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the closing administrator of the recent RFC: Sorry if I wasn't clear, I am not suggesting that the RfC covered the OR question, what I'm asking is that arguments that say "SM isn't relevant here" or "this doesn't relate" stop. There are clearly other issues at hand and other parts of the OR discussion that need to be resolved, but the "SM doesn't belong here" argument should be put to bed. I understand it is possible you might of missed this comment. It is very clear editors should avoid the claim that spinal manipulation is not directly related to chiropractic when the recent RFC determined is relevant. The reason being, there is a clear consensus that SM is relevant to this article. QuackGuru 03:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked you directly above not to post on my page unless you have something new to say. I am not claiming that SM isn't relevant here, in fact chiropractic SM is quite relevant, however general spinal manipulation is not relevant unless the authors of the source state that it is in that instant. Perhaps you missed the comments from the closing admin, directly personally at you, (even though I linked it above) that stated "RfC conclusions are not bludgeons. QuackGuru, this needs to stop - the RfC was quite specific in its scope, so discussions about specific text, how its relevant and how it should be used should not be short-circuited by whacking people with the decisions from this particular RfC"[6]. Please abide by these comments from the admin, as well as my requests that you not post here unless you have something new to say (ie, not repeating the same old arguments). DigitalC (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You know chiropractic SM is quite relevant according to your most recent comment but you claim general spinal manipulation is not relevant. I don't think there is any difference between general SM and SM. There is an article called spinal manipulation but it does not state general spinal manipulation is not the same as SM. Generic, general, and regular spinal manipulation is the same thing IMHO. QuackGuru 03:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Chiropractic SM is relevant to Chiropratic. General/generic/unspecified spinal manipulation is not directly related to Chiropractic. Spinal manipulation is provided by MDs, DCs, DOs, NDs and PTs. If it is provided by anyone OTHER than a chiropractor, or it doesn't specify who provided it, it is not directly related to chiropractic. It is as simple as that. DigitalC (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Which directly contradicts the RfC (which made no difference between practitioners, but was all-inclusive) and chiropractic's two top researchers and authorities on the subject (Meeker and Haldeman):

• "We agree that many of the randomized trials we described were on spinal manipulation rather than specifically on chiropractic manipulation itself, but we believe that this is not a significant point. Chiropractors use all forms of manipulation. In the United States, more than 90% of all spinal manipulation services are provided by chiropractors, and research on spinal manipulation, like that on any other treatment method, is equally of value regardless of the practitioner providing it."

In terms of mainstream chiropractic thinking, you are indulging in a divurgent POV and OR, and thus placing your own editorial POV above them and the sources. -- Fyslee / talk 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)No, that doesn't directly contradict the RfC. As I pointed out when you first posted the RfC, it was too vague. The RfC only clarifies that SM is relevant and directly related to Chiropractic. We already knew that. It DOESN'T clarify what types of SM is relevant and directly related to Chiropractic. Obviously, Chiropractic SM is relevant and directly related. Are fish relevant to the ocean? Yes. Are all types of fish relevant to the ocean? No.

I have already posted on Talk:Chiropractic why I feel that Meeker & Haldeman is not relevant in this situation, and refuse to do so again here. By reposting it here, you are merely beating a dead horse. DigitalC (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'll be off and leave you alone. Take care. -- Fyslee / talk 02:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic according to the references presented. SM is a technique strongly associated and directly related to chiropractic.[7][8] Per WP:OR, when SM is directly connected to chiropractic it is okay to cite research that has a direct connection. QuackGuru 16:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing sigs

FYI, two of your last three comments at Talk chiropractic are missing their sigs. Normally a bot fixes that, but it doesn't seem to be working. -- Fyslee / talk 01:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup - I've gone and added signatures on them. DigitalC (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Circular arguments at Talk:Chiropractic

Copied from the talk page to ensure you see this. We've tried gentle reminders and redirection here and that doesn't seem to be working, so let me put this very clearly one more time. Levine, DigitalC (and anyone else I missed making the same argument) the RfC was clear that SM was related to Chiropractic. I understand that you disagree with this outcome, but Wikipedia works by consensus. Any further argumentation along those lines should be dropped post haste or you may find yourself taking a break from the article for continuing disruption. If you have a concern about the specific wording of the section or a concern using a specific study from that section, please discuss that content issue directly. If you continue to stall work on resolving these disputes with another general argument that somehow SM research may not or can not or isn't good enough for the article, expect a topic ban to come shortly after. Shell ^babelfish 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The RfC was clear that it was "NOT about any relation between generic spinal manipulation and chiropractic spinal manipulation" (direct quote from Rules of engagement over RfC). Any OR argument that I have is based on THAT argument, NOT based on the argument that "SM is not related to Chiropractic". Further, as an admin you know that an RfC cannot change policy. WP:OR states that reliables sources "directly support the information as it is presented." We do not have any sources that support the information as it is presented, because it is being presented in an article on Chiropractic, which is NOT how it is presented in the sources. I expect a clarification message from you, because for you to state that if bring forward an argument that "SM research may not or can not or isn't good enough for the article" (even though the RfC clearly stated it was "NOT about any relation between generic spinal manipulation and chiropractic spinal manipulation, and that it was "NOT about 'research'" ), and even though 15 editors have supported, in some form or another through talk page participation, removal of such information, seems like obstruction of my participation in the wikipedia project, and misrepresentation of the respective RfC. DigitalC (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, I request that you strikeout the comment about me "[stalling] work on resolving these disputes". I have no intention of stalling any resolution, and to imply that I do as not assuming good faith, something what a WP admin should know. DigitalC (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that the RfC was "NOT about any relation between generic spinal manipulation and chiropractic spinal manipulation"; the RfC was considerably more broad. You may wish to re-read the actual question of the RfC and the closing statement that explained the consensus. You may view the outcome as incorrect, but you may not continue along as though the consensus did not exist; to do so constitutes disruptive or tendentious editing. Please remember that just because you believe something is original research doesn't make it so - especially when you have a wealth of other editors (and RfCs) that disagree with you.

As I explained, this is not intended to curb all discussion or opine on the suitability of content. If you have a specific statement or source in the article that you think is problematic or misrepresented, you are free to discuss those issues on their merits. You will not be permitted to continue a discussion that has been the topic of several RfCs and that is, on its face, far to general to impact article content.

Whether or not you intended to stall the discussion and keep the OR tag on the article as long as possible is immaterial; your actions and circular arguments have amounted to the same. If you'd like to continue to work on article content and resolving these content disputes, you'll find that identifying what changes you would like to see in the article and discussing them specifically is much more likely to garner results than months of generalized arguments. Shell ^babelfish 22:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have posted specific OR problems, and have not received much response. See my problems with Ernst & Canter, 2006. I would like to hear what you think is a circular argument though. DigitalC (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Its possible that with the many threads on the Chiropractic talk page that other editors may be missing your more specific discussions. You might try repeating those or making another post in the appropriate section to "bump" or call attention to those points. Shell ^babelfish 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Those concerns were resolved by examining how other reliable sources treated the 2006 review, see Is your back in safe hands?, Chiropractors are offering 'worthless' form of treatment and Junk medicine: spinal manipulation. Also PMID 17224347, a review of the evidence base for chiropracty written by a chiropractor, stated Innovative ways to select studies and perform regression for meta-analyses are even appearing to cast manipulation (and thus by association chiropractors) in a less favorable light., chose the Ernst 2006 review as a citation to support this statement. Your own opinions on how this source might be interpreted are irrelevant, we follow how reliable sources deal with these general SM reviews. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to re-read that section. My concerns also involve the use of the references at the end of that sentence to say something that not one of the references says. None of the references say that the RCTs are "typically of low quality". DigitalC (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. Shell ^babelfish 23:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF

The protection page is on my watchlist. Accusing me of wiki-stalking is bad faith. Please redact your comments. QuackGuru 05:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:British Columbia Coast

Can you please check the comment on this page, Talk:British Columbia Coast. IMHO, a whole section should be re-written or put into wikiquotes. I noticed you had done some revisions and corrections on the article page. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

Glad to see that you are back. What kept you away all these days? --MaNiAδIs^{τάλκ-Autographs} 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I needed a break from wiki-drama, and it also coincided with a vacation in the sun. DigitalC (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Colon cleansing fact tags

Hi DC,

Regards this edit and this talk page section, I guess I'm only really directing this at you - per WP:V, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." - in this case, I think most would agree that it's a fair description of these types of colon cleansing regimens, so I wonder how you would feel about removing them (assuming no-one else challenges the descriptions on the talk page)? Also note in this edit RoyBoy removed one of the tags because it was referenced below. I used to go to the opposite end - completely remove all citations from the lead because the actual footnotes and references were (I thought) supposed to be in the body text. Then I turned up WP:LEADCITE and found out that either extreme is actually wrong! I was quite surprised when I finally found this out - after 20,000 edits you think you know everything. Anyway, I found it surprising, but it's handy to know 'cause lead sections are always a bit weird. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My view is (and which I believe is in accord with policy) that the lead should be a summary of the body of the article. Therefore, anything unreferenced in the lead either has a reference in the body that just needs to be added to the lead, or there is a verifiability problem of unsourced text in the lead and in the body. Its easy enough to name references and use the same ref name for the body and the summary in the lead. As for removing the text, I wouldn't be happy leaving the text about oral cleaning in the article, as this doesn't sound like any of the claims I have heard before, unless we can find a source for it. For the statement "Colon cleansing lacks scientifically validated medical benefit for the claims made by alternative medicine practitioners", I believe we not only need a source here, but a source that meets MEDRS, as this is making a scientific/medical claim. Again, I'm not necessarily disputing the text itself (I don't believe that colon cleansing HAS medical benefit), however, such a scientific/medical claim should be verifiable. I realise & understand that WP:V states that only content that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, but I think this is backwards, as it allows unsourced content to remain in articles until someone challenges it (ie "If its likely that someone will challenge it, then they will challenge it, and we will remove the text then). My goal here is to improve the article, as well as the project. DigitalC (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Optical telescope

OK, I added a request for comments to the talk page. I hope we can get some new perspectives, LouScheffer (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR and LEAD violation

You currently appear to be engaged in edit war and violating WP:LEAD according to the reverts you have made on Chiropractic. Users may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing or even indef-banned. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that is in accordance with WP:LEAD. Violating Wikipedia's WP:LEAD is a serious matter. QuackGuru 06:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the one violating WP:LEAD. Take it to the talk page, rather than attempting to edit war in your preferred version. I restored it to the last version that had consensus. You are failing to abide by WP:CON. Consensus needs to be reached on the talk page for this controversial edit. DigitalC (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking improvements by misunderstanding WP:CON is unhelpful. Per WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.

DigitalC deleted the sentence about chiropractic history from the lead and replaced a concise sentence with a vague sentence in the lead.

Removing the summary about chiropractic history and adding vagueness to the WP:LEAD was not productive. Please understand that the lead should summarize the article and be able to stand alone. QuackGuru 06:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page. I didn't delete anything, I merely reverted back to the last consensus version. That sentence is not an adequate summary of the history section. I agree that the lead should summarize the article and be able to stand alone, but that doesn't mean that every trivial bit of information belongs in the lead. No one is blocking improvements. DigitalC (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not trivial to properly summarize effectiveness in the lead. It is not trivial to properly summarize the history section in the lead. Editors have identified a problem with the lead. For example, there are current vagueness problems with opinion differ in the lead. You are welcome to help improve on the new proposal. If you are unable to recognize there are problems with the lead then maybe you should reread the talk page. QuackGuru 00:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

These issues have been responded to in the appropriate location, at Talk:Chiropractic. Please desist from continuing to post here on this matter. DigitalC (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I explained before I can comment here. Please show a little respect. My goal with the article is WP:GA. QuackGuru 03:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And I am explaing here again, that this talk page is not to be used to discuss article improvements or article content. That is to be discussed on an article talk page. You are free to use my talk page as a form of dispute resolution, to discuss user behaviour. Further posts on my talk page about article content will be considered harassment, and a thread will be started at WP:ANI. DigitalC (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please strike your comment about harassment and wiki-lawyering. Part of dispute resolution is commenting on the talk page. There are problems to be fixed. Vagueness in the lead is a problem. QuackGuru 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please also strike your comments here. Your comments were in bad faith. Commenting on the talk page is part of the Wikipedia process. QuackGuru 03:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Buranby rename categories

Hey there, I check on on Burnaby's talk page you support renaming the main article from Burnaby, British Columbia to Burnaby and I was wondering I propose the nominated categories for 5 Burnaby related categories to be renamed and I did so if you want to check the categories go to today's Categories for discussion to match it's main article title and let you if you could support renaming those categories click on this link located above. Steam5 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't use WP much anymore, and as such I missed your message. I'm glad to see that the renames passed, as it is something I would have supported. As noted in the CfD discussion, you need to be careful with WP:CANVASS. Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Wollumbin. Mt Warning is Wulambiny

We would appreciate your assistance to alter the false information on Wikipedia about Mt Warning. The name Wollumbin was stolen from my families Mountain and applied to Mt Warning as a false Dual name.

We have the anthropological studies from the Elders, 50 year old tapes, the 1977 NSW NPWS anthro study and the false transcripts used by national parks, dictionaries from the language speaking elders and hundreds of supporting documents, but cannot upload them to wiki and I am new to wiki. Apologies that references were not included but I am unsure how to include reference links. Professor Sharpes dictionary has the correct name for Mt Warning (Wulambiny) and is on the net. NSW Geo names board site shows that the name Wollumbin was stolen from Mt Wollumbin in 2005. We have the minutes from NSW GEO names board meetings where lie after lie was told to the board. The Elders are furious at this false info on Wikipedia.

Wollumbinmountain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wollumbinmountain (talk • contribs) 04:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wollumbinmountain (talk • contribs)