User talk:Filll/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Isle of Wight[edit]

Cheers. Thought it needed knocking into shape. Tried to do it like Cornwall, with all the categories nicely structured. I hope i'm doing the right things, i'm new to this. Don't even know if you will see this!

I'm impressed that you work on the IOW pages, you must be 4000 miles away! I go there a lot, it's a beautiful island, very rural but with the advantage of being by the sea. Yellow, blue & green, a feast for the eyes.--Debnigo 01:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it seems sort of exotic. I have never been there. It is also a bit of a challenge finding out about such tiny places, so far away.--Filll 10:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A great attack on evolution[edit]

Just read here--Filll 12:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How depressing. Interesting that it is a strikingly Aryan student who defeats the swarthy, curly-haired and large-nosed professor. I don't like those kind of undertones. Tim Vickers 18:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
People have blasted me over and over for this, but most of these people who push this anti-evolution agenda are antiSemitic, antiCatholic, antiBlack, antiGay, antiGunControl, antiAbortion, proWar, etc. --Filll 18:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
That is scary. The professor looks, well, Jewish. The kid is definitely an Aryan proto-Nazi. And I didn't know there were 6 theories of evolution. I must have missed that in our article here. Orangemarlin 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to amuse you here. Thanks to Jim! Orangemarlin 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
He actually kind of reminds me of Salman Rushdie. ornis 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

An example of why we have to be careful[edit]

I went to find out some more information about the Arndt-Schulz rule and i went to the International Biopharmaceutical Association website, where I found that the definition they are using comes from our own Wikipedia article! [1] Oh brother...--Filll 12:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to peter[edit]

That user abridged has gone mate, he's left wiki behind in disgust, so your words were wasted. sorry about that some folks just can't stay calm, please continuew ith your good work and just get on with it basically. thank you Peter morrell 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I really appreciate your help. I understand that he was upset with the intermediate products, but we have to just keep our noses to the grindstone here and completely this transition from one article to 1 main article and 3 daughter articles, which will be an immense change. Hopefully when all is said and done, people will be able to read about the fascinating history of homeopathy more easily, and be able to judge its merits and demerits more easily since they will be able to read the material. If I have to deal with massive rewrites while I am still moving stuff around, it will just be incredibly difficult. If he had wanted to be productive, he could have helped me with wikilinks, or making up new articles for the redlinks that exist in these 4 articles so the reader will be able to follow this story easily. I want the reader to not have to go outside of wikipedia to find out about psora or isopathy or vitalism. I want them to be able to just click on a link, especially since many of these articles already exist, but were not linked in properly.--Filll 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's OK I am happy with your work and if he/she had been a bit more patient and not interfered I guess they would have been too...let's just stay with the task, I vote for that. If you don't mind, I request that you just soldier on mate! thanks Peter morrell 17:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I see a certain bad editor and friend of yours has returned to the homeopathy article. I would suggest to you that he best stay away, because he pushes all the wrong buttons and is way too OTT in his prejudicial amendments and bad language. He is the cause of the problem and not part of the solution. If you want my continued support for your good editorial skills then please ask him to desist. thank you Peter morrell 20:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I never use bad language in public. 2) I agree with you on Abridged (so see, we're in synch on something. 3) Don't threaten me, this isn't a dictatorship. 4) Yes, I'm prejudicial on Homeopathy, but I've been asked by nice people to work with you. If you're willing to, I will. 4) I can read, so I see you're asking me to desist. 5) What's an OTT? 6) I cause no problems. Orangemarlin 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have worked with Orangemarlin for months and jointly authored several articles with him. He might feel a bit sensitive about this subject, since it is close to his own background and interests, but I have found him to be scupulous about enforcing NPOV in many cases. I have often seen him revert edits of those who went too far, even if those edits were in a direction that were in accord with his own POV. I think that if you give Orangemarlin a chance, and work with him, you will find him to be more than fair and a gentleman usually (although both of us have been known to get a bit heated on occasion).--Filll 21:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this person has ANYTHING whatsoever to offer this article other than hateful disbelief and snide blather, which is all he has offered it and placed before us so far. So I have no intention of working with him. I'm sorry if that sounds uncooperative but tell me: what does he know about homeopathy, what does he care about it and what can he offer this article? the answer is nothing whatsoever. He calls it dangerous pseudoscience. Where do you go with that? A qualification in allopathy in no way qualifies anyone to comment meaningfully on another branch of medicine. Quite the contrary, his mind is filled ONLY with hatred and prejudice for this subject. Count me out, if he stays. Peter morrell 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, you missed the parts about my science and medical backgrounds. Since you and your type claim Homeopathy is science and medicine, I should be able to help.  :) Orangemarlin 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Count me out, if he stays. I wouldn't make promises like that if I were you. ornis 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers has also worked with Orangemarlin and I am sure will agree with me that he is quite reasonable. I know that Orangemarlin is a bit strident sometimes, but so am I and Orangemarlin has had to keep me in check numerous times; in fact, it is far more common for me to be the one who is uncivil and lashing out and for him to be calming me down. This is a bit strange for the shoe to be on the other foot! I am sure that Orangemarlin does not believe that ALL homeopathic activities are dangerous, but I am sure we all agree that some homeopathic treatments might be, particularly in the case of irresponsible fringe practitioners and lost opportunities. Of course, we all know that conventional medicine screws up from time to time as well (look at the tremendous toll of iatrogenic illness that was documented in a recent report). I think you guys just got off on the wrong foot. Peter is clearly well versed in this area. He has had special academic appointments in the area of the History of Medicine. He has written a wide range of well-regarded articles. If you just take a deep breath, you will find that you have the same goals here, and we can all work together productively. It is fairly clear to me that Peter does not want to misrepresent the skepticism that homeopathy faces, as that other editor seemed to want to do, which is the source of all the potential conflict. So I am appealing to both of you to try to accept each other.--Filll 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV for "Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story"[edit]

Dear Filll, this upcoming Wikidocmentary film article is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review on today, because a recent decision to retain it on Wikipedia has been appealed and it is in progress in reaching an ultimate consensus. You may wish to contribute to the review. Since you had involved in it before, so do help out and try not to hesitate to voice out your advocated opinion! Pole Heinz Tower 14:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat Refs[edit]

Hi, Filll, I converted the external links throughout the article into footnotes and I was wondering if you would take a look see at the article's Reference and External links sections. Should we just get rid of the External links section? Al Ameer son15:34, 13 July 2007

I think that is a good start. You might consider what I did on reference 31 and see if you like that. I would suggest that is more scholarly and gives the reader more information that they do not have to click on the link to get. This text is part of a Human Rights Watch Report, what is the subject and date of the report, etc.--Filll 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes I saw what you did on reference 31, and I tried doing that with all of the refs I edited. However, for some reason I couldn't manage to do anything for references, 36, 43 and 48. Maybe you should have a look see and try to fix those ones as well. As for the dates, many of those links are not direct or perhaps expired so I was not able to attain the dates that they were published.
On another, but similar note, I was wondering what we should do about the External links list, now that we have almost all of them converted to references. Al Ameer son 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I would remove the external links if they have been converted to regular references. We might want to eventually migrate to an even more advanced reference system which I have not yet mastered as well. I will look to see how things are.--Filll 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Look at what I did on reference 33. I think we might have to go to Wikipedia:Citation templates eventually, but that will be easier once we have all the necessary information I think.--Filll 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I managed to do to ref 29 what you did for ref 33, however I think we will have to begin on the Wikipedia:Citation templates because we simply cannot achieve what we did to those two references for all of the references. -- Al Ameer son 18:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok if you think the Wikipedia:Citation templates will help you, by all means use them. I find them sort of annoying myself, but eventually I will have to use them. I just have been quick and dirty to make it look reasonably good with a fair amount of information available to the reader. It is important to give the full title, author if available, date, date accessed, volume etc. --Filll 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I thought you were pursuing them, because I think they're could be other solutions, and tracking all of the dates and other necessary information will be near impossible since the bulk of users who added the info, added it from News websites which for the most part, keep them in archives or in some cases with French News websites, expire. I also thought I could use Said K. Aburish's biography on Arafat From Defender to Dictator, at least on the Tunisia, Palestinian Authority and peace negotiations, Political survival, marginalization and controversy sections as I did for the previous sections. The only reason that is the limit is because the book was published in 1998. Perhaps, I can use the Wikipedia:Citation templates for those references -- Al Ameer son 01:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It will be tedious, but that is what needs to be done to push the article towards GA or FA status.--Filll 01:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I should go ahead and use the biography to reference as much of those sections as I could then? -- Al Ameer son 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am not sure what you mean.--Filll 02:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the sections I highlighted above, I was wondering If I would be able to use Said K. Aburish's biography on Arafat, to replace the external links that we are having trouble with in those particular sections. The reason I am asking you is to know whether using his biography would be somewhat redundant because I used it for all of the previous sections. I don't think it would matter much, however your views may be contrary to mine. -- Al Ameer son 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot find the references, try the internet archive to see if you can get backups, or webcite. I would also look at Wikipedia:Citing sources as well as Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22. But if you find a lot of dead links, and cannot find new ones, then sure, use the biography as well.--Filll 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll look for the expired or lost web pages in the archives but right I do not have much time, I am going to St. Augustine for a trip and I'll be back. However I will use the citation templates for the book references. -- Al Ameer son 15:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


I have no clue where you are going with this article? The undue weight given to its efficacy is ridiculous. You're a mathematician....there is no shot of a single molecule of anything getting to the human body--unless water counts. This is a dangerous therapy, and because you are a "scientist" you're giving credibility to the article. I'm lost as to your goals. Orangemarlin 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there is no good present scientific evidence that this treatment works. There is also no known accepted theory from chemistry or physics that could explain any putative cures by these techniques. Just as User:TimVickers (another PhD, but this time in biology) has done, I am trying to make this article easier to read. I think that homeopathy started out in a reasonable fashion, for its time, but the original efforts to do empirical testing somehow did not continue, or at least were somehow focussed in the wrong direction. If one looks at the other work of Hahnemann, he anticipated many techniques in allopathic medicine, so he was not a nut, at least compared to his peers in medicine. Of course I am biased in the direction of science, but I think that if a reasonable description of homeopathy is produced, together with criticisms and references from sceptics, the reader will be able to determine for himself or herself how to evaluate it. If you look at the main homeopathy article, it contains a huge chunk of material that expresses opposition to the concept. Half of the LEAD, as well as sections 5, 7 and 8 are all dismissive of homeopathy. Also, I have broken out a lot of the material to 3 daughter articles, which I have insisted also include material that makes it clear that there is opposition to homeopathy (much to the displeasure of one editor here with all of 770 edits or so who got his nose out of joint). Even in the material that is supportive of homeopathy, the very description strains credulity, at least for me. Grinding up bits of the Berlin Wall to use as medicine? Diluting things to concentrations as small as 10^(-30) or more? Claiming that strength increases with decreasing concentration is just beyond belief. When I was a boy, my father delighted in making fun of homeopathy. My mother, who was a nurse, and very proud of conventional medicine, was equally dismissive. I am definitely NOT pro-homeopathy. But I am pro-information, and I think that a reader who has access to all this information, in the clearest possible language, will be well-served. I think that a poorly written article is not good for the readers, is not good for Wikipedia, and if anything will be used by the unscrupulous to obfuscate the true nature of homeopathy and confuse the public with fancy undefined words and terms. We can perform a great service here by defining everything carefully and clearly, and providing all sides of the story. That is what I am doing. I hope you will join me in this. And we can do the same thing on other articles like herbalism as well. --Filll 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Filll, you're missing my point. A historical treatise is fine. Providing information is fine. But the article is giving undue weight to facts that are clearly wrong. The Lead gives equal credence to this pseudoscience as it does to the fact that it is pseudoscience. This is the same problem we have with any pseudoscientific article. Go back to Creation science, which in essence, is the same thing, relying on faith or spiritual (or whatever) to counter science. There isn't one single verifiable reference that gives credence to the "claims" (and I'm using claims in the medical manner) of Homeopathy. If anyone goes to the article, and dismisses standard medical care to try this pseudo-medicine, then we have harmed another human being, because they will reject what may actually cure them. I'm disappointed in the direction you have taken the article. However, JoshuaZ, whom I know is a research scientist, has involved himself in the article--I'm hoping he balances your POV. Orangemarlin 05:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Orangemarlin, I have not removed anything that is critical of homeopathy. I have just taken the article as is, and pared it down by farming out material to 3 daughter articles. I have made sure that there is information about the opposition to homeopathy in each of the daughter article leads. As this process progresses, I would expect these 3 daughter articles to be modified and negative material blended in better. In fact, after removal of material from the main article, the ratio of {explanatory homeopathy material)/(material opposed to homeopathy) in the main article has actually decreased, since I left the denominator alone and decreased the numerator! All that I have done is try to improve the wording of the first 3 sections of the main article so far (Lead, sections 1 and 2) so that it is clearer what the authors are trying to say (at least in my opinion). I think that being clearer benefits EVERYONE, detrators and supporters. Later, after the wording is clear, and the material is better organized, and gaps are filled in, we can argue about whether the articles are too favorable to homeopathy or too negative. For now, I just want to keep most of the present material in there and write it and organize it carefully. For example, if the D, C, L, X and M potency scales are not well explained, then we have not done our jobs here. If you are a detractor, then knowing for sure what the potency refers to and the concentration etc, will do nothing but bolster your arguments. If you are a supporter, it is valuable to explain this clearly. The average reader benefits because then they know what is being said, instead of fighting their way through wordy unclear text. All medical claims are, or should be, qualified in some way. Contrary evidence and opposition should be discussed. JoshuaZ messed up one reference, put in an unverified sentence in a place that broke up the paragraph flow (when there was plenty of that same material one paragraph later in more detail) and removed a paragraph that, as outrageous as it was, still belongs in there. The outrageous paragraph belongs there for 2 reasons. One, Peter agrees that it is accurate. Two, it demonstrates what homeopathy is really about by making some outrageous claims. I say, if you want to discredit homeopathy for making outrageous claims, then make it clear what the outrageous claims are. Do not hide them or cover them up. That will not serve the reader well. As Louis Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.--Filll 06:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You are so wrong. And to have the support of someone whose seems to rely on personal attacks is beyond comprehension. You do what you need to do, but you do not have my support on it--you are the only one of the pro-science group that has given this article credence. I'm contacting others for assistance in this matter, and to deal with the personal attacks from your one supporter. You are also not using Brandeis correctly--sunlight were facts. This article deals in perverting facts. Orangemarlin 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. There is something I am not understanding here I guess. I have asked TimVickers for advice, because I am not sure what to do. I believe Tim Vickers to also be quite pro-science. If one looks at the history of the article, other pro-science people have worked on it as well. I have to check their contributions, but I think they have similar motivations to mine, and similar approaches, but I will stand corrected if this is not true.
To me, the article is like an article on phlogisten or the caloric theory or the ether, but with a twist. It is an idea that was fairly mainstream at one time, but which is now abandoned by most mainstream practitioners. It is an idea that has no clear evidence for it, and has been superceded by other ideas which are clearly supported by evidence. Like phlogisten or the ether, it is an idea that some still hold onto. The twist is that this theory is about health, and therefore is potentially dangerous to people's health, from opportunity cost if nothing else. So we have to be more diligent in dispelling any misconceptions about it, and revealing the actual beliefs. That is all.
I think that this discipline from the history of medicine has been left behind and now is more properly regarded as pseudoscience. I think that revealing ACTUAL beliefs held by homeopaths , such as the idea that grinding up the Berlin Wall remnants to make medications, or capturing a thunderstorm in a medication somehow, are quite revealing. It is factual that they believe these things and dispense them to the public, is it not? You and I might disagree with these beliefs, but homeopaths do believe them and dispense them, correct? That is a fact. It should not be hidden. It should be revealed. The sheer outrageousness of these kinds of activities, with no obvious underlying reasoning or evidence that these activities are of any value or do what is claimed, puts these practices clearly in the pseudoscience camp, if you ask me.
However, in addition in the article, there are large chunks discussing the lack of evidence that homeopathy works in all kinds of tests and analyses under rigorous conditions, using double blinds, etc. Possibly more links are necessary to more studies; we can do that. Possibly more weasel words like "claimed", "allegedly", "controversial" etc are needed to caution the reader that we are not dealing with a current scientifically verified, medically approved set of treatments; we can do that. Definitely the sentences have to be made more clear, in any case. Should it be categorized in the pseudoscience category, if it is not there already? I would claim that since it appears on most pseudoscience lists of organizations like the NAS or other scientific bodies, to put this article in the pseudoscience category is preferable so that it can be found easily. Should it be classified in the category of "Obsolete medical treatments"? In my view, it probably should if it is not already, since it was clearly more mainstream 200 years ago, but is clearly not mainstream today, having been left behind.
There was even a form of empirical testing that "supported" some aspects homeopathy (albeit quite primitive), which was not particularly standard pratice in many other kinds of medicine at the time (this in itself makes it quite interesting from a study of the history of science and medicine). Unfortunately, I think the empirical testing applied mainly to choice of treatment, not to the results of the treatment, if I understand correctly. This is not brought out well by the article, however.
This is the kind of sunlight I am talking about. Show the beliefs and practices for what they are. Show the lack of modern studies showing any clear benefit. Discuss the weird unverified reasoning behind the treatments. Explain the big words, so a person reading it is not buffaloed by a bunch of jargon and possibly mislead to believe it is real science or real medicine. To me, this is sunshine. These are facts. These facts are making it clear what is going on, the lack of evidence that supports it, the opinions of major reputable authorities, etc. How could this be bad? I am very dismayed at what I see on all sides, and in the nonsentences and confusion in the article itself.--Filll 13:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shown your true colours then huh? you have no place editing this article orangeman and never will, the above rant is pure BS. standard medicine what are you talking about? there is no such thing. everything you say stinks. Peter morrell 06:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


You said: What exactly does this sentence mean and is it properly placed?

This modern approach also harks back to the ancient 'doctrine of signatures,' which Hahnemann definitely rejected as uncertain guesswork.[29] --Filll 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you have no idea what you are doing. leave it in it is of course highly relevant. Please also put back in a long paragraph removed by JoshuaZ who clearly knows nothing about this subject but, as with the orange hack-job, he insists on interfering. It is highly relevant material. The doctrine of signatures: well, why not try to learn what it is instead of removing good stuff? educate your self about the subject you hack to pieces!

I repeat, stop interfering with the valid content of this article on homeopathy. you are overreaching your actual knowledge now and deleting good stuff. Peter morrell 03:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I do not want to remove anything that is meaningful. Please keep a careful eye on it to make sure I do not remove anything important. I am trying to word it carefully so it can be understood, but if I make any mistakes, please be sure to tell me so I can correct them.--Filll 03:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

outstanding issues[edit]

I assume you must be busy but there are still MANY issues and questions, points etc I have raised on the talk page that you have not responded to. I am idly doing nothing now and probably gonna go out so I will check back later...for example, the word practices, the issue about length of the critique and whether it should be mostly farmed out to a new article, the Randi thing which I think has no valid place in the article and much of the longwinded stuff in the critique could be trimmed back or summarised or farmed out. We need to do this and then maybe insert small pieces that are actually (ahem!) dare I say, about homeopathy itself!! thanks Peter morrell 16:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking about what to do with the history and techniques daughter articles, which are a mess as well. I am still far from happy with the main homeopathy article, but at least it sort of is starting to read like English, for a change. References still are quite lacking of course. I am glad to have your help and have not yet incorporated all of your ideas yet. I am not happy with how long winded the scientific criticism section is, but I am not sure that the consensus will allow it to be condensed at all or farmed out to another article. I suspect not. I want to describe the D, X, L, M etc system of describing concentrations more clearly, probably in the techniques article. I want to describe potentisizing more clearly, possibly in a short article. I am not sure that miasm belongs in the main article. Psora and some other articles that support this still stink. The Classical homeopathy article that was removed can still be mined for stuff. Many biographies are showing up as redlinks and need to be created. Related topics like those I first raised on the talk page have not yet been folded in and linked in. That Korean study can be mentioned but only if we can find out what the response has been by the community. The Homeopathy around the world daughter article is better, but still needs more work and has lots of gaps. Things are slowly evolving, hopefully in a positive direction. Now editors can actually read what the article is about and hopefully make reasonable suggestions (maybe not totally, but better than before).--Filll 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks good progress has been made by you, let's stick with it. I will hang fire with the stuff I ahnded to you so far and then we can progress it...sub articles are not such an immediate worry, once we get the main article straight. thanks Peter morrell 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy article lacks balance[edit]

The article is too long because about 55% of it is the long diatribe stating its alleged dangers. If anti-homoepathy folks are going to trim the first half of the article and delte much of its neutral factual content, then homeopaths will also want to trim much of that other stuff. The stuff on vaccination is garbled nonsense as it reads god knows where that comes from...and the james randi stuff is completely unnecessary as with some of the alleged dangers section. If the bias continues in this fashion the article will not be about homoeopathy any more, but about what the antis people think about it. That is just no good. It will not survive in such a state, so I suggest you address these issues head on now, before the whole thing goes swirling down the pan. I'm borderline out of this anyway by now so please bear this in mind. I hope you can balance the article up a bit. thanks Peter morrell 16:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I will see what I can do, but this is a very delicate balancing act. I need someone like TimVickers or maybe a few others to help me here.--Filll 17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Revise's OK and you have help on all sides and peace has broken out thanks to Orangemarlin contacting me... so let's see what we can do together as a team? i feel a bit more positive now. Tim is onboard too, so I reckon I can now go out now with my kids and leave you guys to it!:) I will check in again later....Peter morrell 17:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Progress review[edit]

I am disaappointed that you have STILL not revised that referenced consultation para I did for you or the doctrine of signatures stuff I produced. I know you are a bit 'snowed under' but these should have been done by now. Please can we get them done soon? Do you STILL need a brief thing about potencies? I am still not happy about the poor referencing in parts of the critique section. e.g. two complex and contenious and probably irrelevant or at least marginal, paragraphs 'supported' by just one ref 105 why? it is just not tough enough compared to the referencing standard you demand for the straight homeopathy stuff. thanks Peter morrell 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Peter. I will fold that stuff in, and try to check some of the changes that others have made in the last day or so. I think some useful stuff might have been deleted. I had some computer problems but hopefully they are fixed now. On the other hand, I think that in a few days we have made huge changes that might position this family of articles on this topic very positively for the future. For example, if I use the tool at [2] on homeopathy, I find that I have made the 3rd highest number of edits of the article in 5.5 years, and almost have as many edits as TimVickers has had over a period of a year or so, but I have done it all in 3 days. Also, in half of the month of July of 2007, we have already exceeded the 320 edits from July of 2006 by 17 edits, and we have another 16 days or so to go. So it is being edited at an incredibly fast rate. And huge changes are occuring. And lots of stuff is being moved around. New references are being added. Fresh eyes are looking at it, and I think we have fixed an immense number of problems with the text so far. However, it is clear that some of the changes in the future are going to get sticky because there are a lot of other views to consider, and some of these changes will get tough to get consensus on. At least it is moving, and I think we are generating some interest, which is what I hoped would happen once it started being a bit easier to read.--Filll 04:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to say sorry. It's OK thanks, it will get done that's all I wanted to hear. Yes, it has gone at great speed (thanks mostly to you) and the article is certainly now in MUCH better shape. I will do something referenced, short and snappy on potency scales anyway in case you can use it. Regarding the costs stuff all I think we need to point up is that 99.97% of the global drugs market is controlled and financed by regular pharmaceuticals and only 0.03% is the homeopathic share. That comes from Boiron and obviously needs confirming in billion dollars or whatever, but it does show the miniscule nature of homeopathy globally and highlights the absurdity of the claim I referred to in the article about the alleged "expense" of homeopathic treatment as wasted money! Considering the "safety" record of conventional therapeutics, the claim is both laughable and outrageous. It shows, arguably, how desperate conventional medicine is to paint homeopathy in the blackest possible light and how much of a 'threat' global pharmacy regards homeopathy "encroaching" on its sacred and highly profitable global turf. If you want a truly objective article then I'm afraid ALL such issues will need to get folded into the mix! thanks for all your work so far Peter morrell 06:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Potency stuff[edit]

I have now dumped that new paragraph on potency in the article Drug dynamization under a new heading so maybe you can take a look at it and decide if you wish to use it or summarize it, etc. It is profusely referenced Peter morrell 05:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


The good news is that most of the editors are at least somewhat sensible. The bad news is that there's a lot of woos about trying to push their POV. For the worst experience I had, have a look at Vithoulkas' meat puppet brigade at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Vithoulkas This deleted attack and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination) and Talk:George_Vithoulkas Adam Cuerden talk 18:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you please restore the drug dynamization article to wiki? that means revert the vandal's work. If not, then I am not cooperating any further and the only one with any actual knowledge of this subject will leave so think about it. There is no need to do massive dramatic deletions of that kind it just pisses soff and leads to the kind of edit wars he really enjoys. check his record. Peter morrell 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot do anything unilaterally of course. That is not how WP works. However, I do believe that many of these articles have still usefull information in them that can be mined and placed in the articles that will stand. In particular, I think that succussion, drug dynamization, potentization, classical homeopathy, clinical homeopathy and complex homeopathy all contain useful information we can pull out. I have to confess that this is a gargantuan effort, and it is even worse with all the controversy. So many people are working at cross purposes it is difficult to even produce a reasonable set of articles that are readable. However, we are moving forward slowly. We just have to be diligent and try to be cooperative. That is the only way anything will get done here.--Filll 16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot do anything unilaterally? are you kidding? well cuerden did exactly that without notice, negotiation or asking. Your talk about consensus is a complete joke. there is none. All I have asked is for the article to be replaced what pray is so controversial about that? and what people are doing the cross-purpose interfering?, oh adam cuerden! what a surprise. Yesterday I placed a brand new piece into that article, a completely, some would say exahaustively referenced piece about potentization, which this morning has been sent into oblivion by cuerden and you talk about bloody consensus I really don't know why I am bothering with this article. It's pathetic. He must be laughing loud and long at "that is not how WP works!" your words... Peter morrell 16:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand completely. The main homeopathy article was changed in several ways in which I disagree. For example, the material that I put in, which I had carefully researched and written, about the museum in Stuttgart, with references, got nuked. I am not even sure who removed it My large number of edits and the turmoil on the talk pages brought in other editors of all stripes. This material will not be totally lost, but will have to be folded in, in some reasonable fashion. Probably the right way for this entire field to have been approached would be to build these articles in a sandbox, out of the mainspace, and get them properly built and referenced, and the English actually clear and understandable. However, it might be too late now, although if things get bad enough, I will suggest that we move to the sandbox for some of these articles. That is a much less stressful way to do it. However, we just have to see how things evolve here. I hope we can come to some consensus as to how these should be organized. I am not so comfortable with throwing out important information in these, but they need to be concise and well-written so people can understand them. We just have to do our best.--Filll 18:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind folding more stuff in - it's all in the page history, you know. I just made it a redirect. But I thought it better to get a readable article now, then expand it, rather than have two articles, one a near-duplicate of the other, and both floating around waiting for someone to do something to raise them to the minimal standard of readability and NPOV. Adam Cuerden talk 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No apology in that of course! too much to expect...well where is the article on drug dynamization as of yesterday lost in cyberspace or what? OK Filll proceed and try to keep this wrecker on a short leash please Peter morrell 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea how to use the "history" tab, do you? Adam Cuerden talk 20:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Peter, Adam is correct. All this material is still here, just hidden from public view. Just click on the history tab. --Filll 20:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

At risk of sounding incredibly thick, is the history tab the arrow to left which says older edit? by any chance? yes OK it's all still there well thanks and no worries afterall...I thought it had all been wiped. Now tell me more about the sandbox please. Peter morrell 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The WP:Sandbox: There is a way to make articles in private, or semiprivate, and then to release them in the main space, or public space. This is the preferred method of writing here on Wikipedia. I think that for controversial articles it is the best method. That way, you can write your article, get input from friends, sometimes for weeks or months, and then when it is ready, release it. It is much harder to build articles from scratch in public, particularly controversial articles because they will be attacked, sometimes from multiple sides at once. I have built several articles in private first, and then released them. It would have been impossible to do it otherwise I think.--Filll 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, glad that's sorted. For reference, the old Drug dynamisation is here and you can use the edit tab to get text from it to paste into the new article - well, old article, really, but I think Drug dynamisation was, at some point, a POV fork of Homeopathic techniques since there was a lot of text shared. I've done a bit of a hatchet job on a lot of the text that was duplicated, trimming it down to an article that is readable. It does, however, need a lot more on the homeopathic justification of the techniques, particularly on succussion causing imprinting, and so on, but I don't think that was actually discussed in any comprehensible way in any of the articles anyway...
My opinion of the material I cut is... well, I'll be blunt. It probably had useful, valuable information in it, but whoever wrote it knew too much about homeopathy, and so left out all the facts and explanations that would make it comprehensible to the layman. For instance, one cut bit read
High potency remedies were first produced in the 1830s. Though Hahnemann wished to see 30c as standard potency in homeopathy, the majority of his contemporaries preferred tinctures and 3x, while others, like the powerfully-built horse-trainer, Caspar Julius Jenichen [1787-1849], [11] General Korsakoff [1788-1853] and Dr N Schreter [1803-1864], were busy raising potency to heights beyond his wildest dreams.
Jenichen sat or stood stripped naked to the waist, holding the bottle in his fist in an oblique direction from left to right, and shook it in a vertical direction. The fluid, at every stroke, emitted a sound like the ringing of silver coins. He paused after every 25th potency, and the muscles of his naked arm vibrated...he was latterly able to give 8400 strokes in an hour.
Such high potencies could not be made by traditional methods, but required succussion without dilution (Jenichen)...
The first paragraph might do as an introduction, though "tinctures and 3x" (I presume 3x is meant to be 3D, not dilution by a third, another common meaning of 3x dilution) The second paragraph doesn't actually explain how potency is being raised by the description of his whacking it. Phrases like "He paused after every 25th potency" and "he was latterly able" make no sense... and "Such high potencies could not be made by traditional methods, but required succussion without dilution (Jenichen)" ...
Alright, maybe what's going on here is an attempt to discuss different people's theories of how to make the most potent remedy, with Hannemann suggesting dilution, and Jenichen suggesting simple repeated succussion. However, "Such high potencies could not be made by traditional methods, but required succussion without dilution (Jenichen)" automatically presumes that Jenichen was right, which is... such a violation of POV. Or did he dilute it after this lengthy succussion? Who knows? The article is unclear.
If you know a lot about the subject, you can probably fill in the gaps. However, the article as it stood was useless for laymen: it was written solely for the converted. Adam Cuerden talk 21:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That is my impression. To turn this sort of writing into something suitable for an encyclopedia is incredibly difficult. Succusion? That is a nonstandard term that does not appear in a dictionary and is ill-defined in all the homeopathic literature, most of which we cannot cite because it is not peer-reviewed or in mainstream venues. Psora? Same thing. Nosode? Same thing. Miasm? Same thing. Potentization? Same thing. And on and on and on. If I cannot read through some text and understand it, what good is it to me? The article is not supposed to be written for practicing homepaths, but for the general public. This is compounded by all sorts of references to mysterious processes, infighting with standard medicine, allusions to miracle results, lousy blog type references that are still unreadable and not particular useful as verifiable references, and just plain bad English. Each sentence needs a subject, an object, and a verb, usually. If it is just a meaningless garble, then this makes things even worse. It is very dismaying. I wish that the homeopathic community...especially after 5.5 years, had managed to get their act together enough to write simple, clear articles that could be featured here on Wikipedia. The simplest things, like referring to the museum that holds some of the Hahnemann papers and instruments in Stuttgart as the "Hahnemann Museum" is incorrect. That is not the name of the museum, and not something that should appear in an encyclopedia. It should also not appear without a reference. When every sentence or two suffers from this sort of problem or worse, it just becomes awful. Then as you try to edit it, some homeopath supporters come in to delete it all because they feel it paints them in a bad light. So that is how the situation became as it is. Not good.--Filll 22:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy complete?[edit]

Is that it then? have you finished editing homeopathy now? why the big lull in action? maybe you can explain what your goals are with this nest of articles. thanks Peter morrell 18:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

My overall goal with this nest of articles, is to create a set of readable articles in standard simple English that any user of Wikipedia can access to understand homeopathy and related topics. However, as I am sure you realize, this is a tedious enterprise. And it moves slowly at time because of other demands on our time. For example, one of my long time goals is to have an article about every community on the Isle of Wight. I have not managed to complete this yet. Another long term goal is to have Translations of Frere Jacques very organized and clear, with each song in the same format, along with a transliteration, and a translation (when appropriate). However, this is moving slowly. And so on. --Filll 11:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Please note the following: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gnixon. Orangemarlin 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Peter_morrell? Adam Cuerden talk 09:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I see it, and I do realize the frustration you feel with this editor. The entire situation pains me. I do not know what to do. --Filll 11:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I know. I hate these kind of situations. If he'd work with others, and try to write for laymen more, he'd be a great asset, but... Adam Cuerden talk 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How can you reconcile your alleged goal of 'a set of readable articles' with requests from 'certain quarters' to define every single term that are perfectly standard terms within homeopathy by PEER REVIEWED jnls? what? this is nuts. peer reviewed by whom? as I have said many times, homeopathy is a subject in its own right that does not need to apologise for its existence or doff its cap to science zealots. Anyone who reads the article will see the terms and can then find standard definitions of those terms anywhere on the web...or you can build into the article links to such defintions. Such would be a reasonable proposition, as opposed to obfuscation and an unstated desire to purge wiki of all allegedly non-science stuff just as if it were a form of creationism. please get real.Peter morrell 11:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have indicated before (although perhaps not clearly enough or directly enough), peer-reviewed journals are the gold standard that Wikipedia science and medicine-related articles aim for. These are not always available, so other sources are included. These might include things like the New York Times, or the Washington Post, for example, in some cases. Books are another reasonable source, in many cases. Other sources are less desirable, for a number of reasons. To get some further idea, take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples or at Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, to start with (although a lot more is available in the related links and articles).
Of course, anyone can dig around on the web for the definitions. However, the point of Wikipedia is to organize this material so a reader does not have to dig around for the definitions on the web. If our standard was that anything confusing or poorly defined could be left to the reader to find on the web, Wikipedia would be much smaller and the articles much less useful, and less heavily used.
A bigger problem is the RfC itself, the link to which appears above. I am not sure you understand the potential consequences of this, but it can be quite serious. Your alleged misbehavior on Wikipedia is being pointed out, and action is being requested.--Filll 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Power of Nightmares FAC[edit]

Concerning your comments on the FA nomination of The Power of Nightmares. I haven't been able to find a lot of reliable sources for the expansion you're discussing. I have also not run into anyone comparing this film with Loose Change or many other conspiracy films. If you can direct me towards relevant reliable soruces concerning these things, please do. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these might be difficult if not almost impossible to find. I have not done any searching for these; I was just noting this seemed a bit strange from the point of view of an outside observer. Some of this could be that the "Power of Nightmares" film has not been widely screen in the US yet (and might never be). I do not know.--Filll 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right. And I've already checked Alex Jones's InfoWars, and they're one endorsement included a link to a YouTube video, so I probably can't use it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with a recalcitrant creationist at Talk:Level of support for evolution[edit]

Anyone wanna come by and help out? --Filll 23:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

An outrageous set of religious videos[edit]

Just take a look at [3].--Filll 14:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

LMAO! I especially enjoyed the bit that compared Merv Griffin to Pol Pot. Thanks for posting that link! PS - I'm glad to hear that you stepped away from the article Black people...I'm afraid it's a lost cause. Besides, kicking ass on neo-Nazis is even more entertaining : ) Doc Tropics 17:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The truth about Genesis and the origin of life[edit]

You have to read this one:

--Filll 03:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

An example of what I find so disturbing about the religious right[edit]

Just watch this one: [5]--Filll 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I remember why I stopped going to church. Wikidan829 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove non-notable boxes[edit]

You have removed a "non-notable" box from the British Centre for Science Education page. As the author of that page, you have committed a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Note the words: "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself."

Spubert 22:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Help required on Edison[edit]


We have a big vandalism problem at Edison.--Filll 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The page is currently semi-protected, so you're seeing a problem with a user that is already autoconfirmed (i.e., has an account that is at least four days old). The best thing to would be to is politely tell the user that he/she is editing nonconstructively; you may use lower levels of warning templates if you wish, then progressing to higher ones. I see that the issue is somewhat resolved... good luck working on the article, then :) GracenotesT § 20:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You know, it's possible that you know all or most of this, but I hope that this helps in some way, at least. GracenotesT § 20:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with EB?[edit]

Hi Filll,

How've you been? We haven't crossed paths lately. :( You especially might be interested in the equipartition theorem article that I've been fixing up the past few days.

I have a more important favor to ask of you, though. I've been working pretty diligently on the Encyclopædia Britannica article, which is now a featured article candidate. It's received a few excellent reviews, but overall surprisingly little attention. Could you maybe look it over and think up ways of improving it? Thanks muchly! :) Willow 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am reading through it and I see a few places where I might have a suggestion or two for you :). A list will be forthcoming.--Filll 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Filll, you're great! :) I've got to run now, though, so don't be surprised if I don't answer right away. Talk to you soon, Willow 01:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Still working on it!--Filll 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Have you got my emails? Dozens of them? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I just switched email addresses and providers a few days back. Let me check. --Filll 00:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Damn, I was feeling ignored! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I got the last 2. Any other burning issues I might have missed? --Filll 00:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC[edit]

As a contributor the the FAR discussion, your input to this FA nomination would be much appreciated. Thanks. TimVickers 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Olympic Nat Park River Otter.JPG My RFA
User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer(((Broken clamshellsOtter chirps))) 17:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Fill, it was me who removed the hangon tag this time, as i thought it notable. I will go back and say so more clearly. But you should not have removed the speedy yourself from any article you created. No reasonable admin would have deleted it under a7, anyway. DGG (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I just got rattled and screwed up. I do not deal with speedies every day.--Filll 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

stop it[edit]

right there--dont insult other editors, or make fun of them. You tend to do sometimes, and it always makes you look bad. DGG (talk) 04:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing you are talking about HS. We have kidded around for months, but I apologize to all and sundry if it somehow made me "look bad". My goodness...--Filll 05:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on homeopathic math[edit]

...although Morrell should have been able to do that math rather than having you figure it out for him. •Jim62sch• 20:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, although to me it is more like basic arithmetic really. This stuff is not that hard. It just has to be explained so the average person can understand it. And I get the impression that even in their own literature, it is not so well explained.--Filll 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Preemptive answer[edit]

- In case you are wondering I am not stalking you. :-) Abecedare 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

New stuff[edit]

Hi Filll. Got you message on my talk. I'll go have a look-see. Incidentally, thanks for the expansion of Clergy Letter Project. 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC