User talk:Wikidudeman/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Daniel David Palmer Food faddism Siddhi Anomalous operation Sankt Johann Ogaden War Iran crisis Carbapenem History of Soviet espionage in the United States Sankt Goar Cefacetrile John-Paul Clarkin Sankt Wendel Sputnik crisis John-Paul Langbroek Rollback Bargen, Schaffhausen Igor Gouzenko Sanne Salomonsen

Cleanup Therapeutic touch Ghost Trackers Rationality Merge Diagnostic kinesiology Nensha Applied kinesiology Add Sources Poltergeist Georgy Malenkov Medical intuitive Wikify Aura (paranormal) Cartagena, Colombia Driving Expand Allele List of hospitals in Norway Jaundice

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to EVP

I'm inviting you to offer your perspective on each section as we've set it up in talk. I think your input considering the work done on Parapyschology would help EVP out significantly. Right now we are working on the lead or opening. My thoughts are to bring consensus for the article top - down (starting with the opening as that sumarizes the article and topic). If you know of any editors who helped with the Parapyschology article who might help out here, I would encourage their participation as well. --Northmeister 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand your reasoning. I'm not asking to ignore the rest of the article. By focusing on the summary, we can get a consensus built summarization of how we feel the article should flow. Everyone can offer their perspective based on what we already have and rewrite the summary accordingly or with improvements based on what information they feel is not properly covered there. With that summary we can then formalize the TOC and tackle each section accordingly referencing the Summary. One might liken it to a synopsis to a book. We all have impressions on how the article should look and can add our observations accordingly. If we can agree on what the article is in summary, we can move forward on the detail per the summary. Your participation does not exclude editing other parts of the article for improvement. --Northmeister 13:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol

Know anything about bioidentical hormone replacement therapy? How about the Wiley Protocol? Wanna do me a favour and have a look at the latter page? I may be starting to lose my objectivity. WLU 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, What's the actual problem? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I had thought you would know... anabolic steroids + homeopathy = the Wiley Protocol? Anyway, the husband of the creator of the Wiley Protocol is barred from editing the page, and keeps pushing for his edits. I believe they are unjustified, and my interpretation of policy is reasonable. He does not. I'm kinda losing my objectivity 'cause I keep getting accused of bias, conflict of interest, censorship and probably causing 9/11 somewhere. It irritates me, making me less likely to support or accede to his requests, I'd just like a third opinion on the situation to make sure I'm not being vindictive. It's mostly on Talk:Wiley Protocol if you don't mind a bit of reading, basically from the second 150 doctors entry, on. If it's too time consuming and you're not interested, don't bother. WLU 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in mediating the disputes on Wiley Protocol.

It seems you've been rather absent from the discussion lately and I'm just wondering whether those of us involved should consider your participation complete. Debv 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Homeopathy

That's fine. I'll give it until 10/02/2007. Dr. Cash 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mercy Akide

If you look at the article properly yourself, you would know it is littered with MOV content. All I did was to clear it up, and make it more friendly to the average user. Don't throw warnings around like confetti. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowzeewee (talk • contribs)

Your edits weren't improvements. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearing up MOV isn't an improvement? Then what is? Should the MOV content just be left as it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowzeewee (talk • contribs)

What does "MOV" stand for? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it stands for "My Own View". What I was doing is just making it more like the average Wikipedia page for a footballer, without one-sided descriptions like "a star was born" and "outsmarting", and all the glitzy, glittery biasness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowzeewee (talk • contribs)

From what I saw, It was quite unencyclopedic and somewhat odd. "outsmarting the boys at the nearby Prisons field"? What does that even mean? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly, my friend! That was what I saw written in the article, and changed away. You reverted it back.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowzeewee (talk • contribs)

I see. I thought that it was something that you had added. My mistake. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowzeewee (talk • contribs)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When........

Is This going to turn blue??. 'Cummon I need to atone for misjudging you before by offering some full on support. Pedro :  Chat  12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when. It could be a few months. I'm too busy right now. However you could help me out on some projects. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me know how I can help my man. Pedro :  Chat  14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting - nope. Resolving disputes - Good, I think (hope!) See Talk:Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for one I'm involved in at the moment. Pedro :  Chat  14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok(I'll reply here from now on), Check out Talk:Race and ancient Egypt. See if you can familiarize yourself with the dispute and add some input. If you have any questions about it just ask. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave it with me. I'm not too active at weekends (family stuff) but will do my best. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my friend. Family time this weekend. I'll have a nose now and will reply, possibly tomorrow. Apologies for not reviewing sooner. Pedro :  Chat  20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

There is a difference between not listening to my reasons than me not providing one. What you are doing by blindly reverting me for no reason is allowing white nationalist fringe theories expoused by non-specialists to have equal weight of mainstream Egyptologists and archaeologists who have treated such dynastic race views as nonsense. Wording it in your own way is original research, it needs to reflect mainstream perception and mainstream sources. I cited Frank Yurco and Robert Morkot, who are among the countless others who have treated the old theories of a "dynastic race" as a foot note in racist pseudo-science. Please see wikipedia reliable sources and look up who these people are. Afrocentric and Eurocentric views are irrelevant to mainstream science.Taharqa 17:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Writing the section in a POV manner is not "giving weight" to anyone or anything. Letting the facts speak for themselves and only adding what is "said" opposed to 'what is' is ideal for such theories. The current version of that section is badly written, POV and lacks reliable sources. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of edit warring. By blindly reverting people continuously with out discussion is considered edit warring. I don't hold you in bad faith, but you do seem a bit hostile. I'm willing to discuss any concerns and I just wish that you'd chill out and try to cooperate, since as stated, I'm willing to discuss any concerns.... Be patient. You accused me of "controlling the article", which is absurd. The only thing that I seek is neutrality and accuracy, that's it.. I won't fault you for that, as it was a personal attack, I understand your frustration, but try and be sensible, because two editors who are clashing is never good for a productive experience on wikipedia..

As to your new comment, you claimed that it doesn't cite reliable sources. At first it did not, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't true as long as you assume good faith and ask for sources. I provided extremely reliable sources who represent the focal point of the field in Yurco (especially) and Morkot. Which is why, as alluded to above, I wish you'd try and be a bit rational.. Such comments are dishonest unless you don't know who these researchers are, in which case you may not be too familiar with the subject, but your contributions are still valuable and I only wish that you practice patience and honesty..Taharqa 17:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You did accuse me of edit warring. The "warning" you left on my talk page said "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Race and ancient Egypt." Reverting without any edit summary or explanation of why you made the edit would be called "blindly reverting". Now let's please try to improve the article by working together, The first step is answering the question I left on it's talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're all cooperating, it isn't a big deal. If I was wrong in that this wasn't your intent, I apologize. As you said, that was an automatic warning message for 3rr anyways and no so much me directly accusing you of ill-intent. Excellent responding of the Cleo section btw, it was a bit scattered and I appreciate your contributions. I'm responding to your concerns on the discussion page now. Hopefully others will aswell.Taharqa 17:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And please refrain from removing cited material, like the 2005 king tut rendering.. Discuss your problem. Also, giving undue weight to a topic that isn't a part of that section is undue weight. Too much weight given to pov, keep it simple. Hawass spoke and the afrocentrists spoke.. That is neutral.. I was trying to respond to the discussion page, but you won't be patient. Please be patient as that truly can be considered edit warring (as you've already removed it once and have violated the e revert policy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.Taharqa 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the weekend and I've been kind of busy, but I'll definitely be more active on Monday. Cheers..Taharqa 23:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:AN/3RR report

Yeah, you are correct. However, 3RR blocks are issued to prevent a user from reverting again. The page is protected, and there's no need for a block. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I protected the page, so you can get to the talk page and resolve this content dispute. If the user is blocked, then he cannot contribute to the discussion on the talk page. Also, given his history with 3RR violations, I doubt a 3RR block now would actually prevent him from violating the policy in the future. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, I didn't protect the page, but another administrator did. Anyway, blocks are preventative, not punitive. I am discussing the matter with other administrators, and I'll get back to you shortly. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64 is right; blocks are always meant to be preventative, not punitive. See WP:BLOCK. It is true that the user in question has been blocked for 3RR repeatedly. Given that history, you might consider a user RFC or other dispute resolution measures, if you can't work it out by private discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK says "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." Given the editors vast history of violating 3rr and the editors ignoring my warnings or shifting the blame onto me, I believe that a block would be ideal to discourage further violations of the policy and future blocks increasing in duration after each subsequent violation. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to make a post about this at WP:ANI; that will let other people who are completely uninvolved look into it and give an opinion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your VandalSniper Application

Good day, and thank you for applying to use the counter-vandalism tool VandalSniper. I am pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted, and you are now approved to use the tool. You are now welcome to download the program - and be sure to read the features guide, if you have not already done so. Please bear in mind that VandalSniper is a powerful program, and that misuse may result in your access being withdrawn by a moderator. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, and once again welcome to VandalSniper! Kind regards, Anthøny ん 17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy - OM on the warpath

Well, WDM, just to forewarn you, Orangemarlin is on the warpath against the article at Homeopathy -- see here. Suffice it to say that he's only pulling back on his usual rude behavior, personal attacks, etc. because Filll is there. But he's about to do whatever he can to tear the article apart that many have worked so hard on, and he's out recruiting his usual gang (like MastCell) so they can revert at will without worrying about bans. Just a heads-up. --profg 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

He is less rude when I am present? Wow and here I thought *I* was the rude one. Do I have to try harder?--Filll 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Got to your page in a roundabout way. Anyway, I've noticed that Filll, OrangeMarlin and Jim62sch seem to have a habit of all being on the same side of a discussion at around the same time. ???? wbfergus ^Talk 18:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd watch the personal attack there profg. wbfergus, watch the implication of anything but that several people, more than Jim, Filll and I, watch and revert bad edits. WDM, implying something other than good faith? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Saying that you, Jim and Filll often agree isn't bad faith. How could it be? I don't understand. You three do often agree. If Wbfergus was insinuating that you're all the same person then I know that's not true. So I definitely wasn't insinuating that. Moreover, I think you might want to work on your own methods of dealing with other editors before criticizing Profg and Wbfergus. Clearly stating that you won't AGF with me, then asking if my comment was assuming good faith? Hmm. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Source - once it has been published here then it will be a reasonably reliable source, although this journal is pretty low-profile so anything it publishes couldn't be used to support extraordinary claims. Tim Vickers 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on Tim. You're a biologist of some sort. What makes an article published in a mechanical engineering journal relevant to a pseudoscience article? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at home, probably get access tomorrow. Tim Vickers 21:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, for User:Profg or anyone else wishing to badmouth me, I am User:MastCell. Not to be confused with User:Mastcell, who pre-dates my arrival on Wikipedia. Worth double-checking before you spout off. MastCell ^Talk 05:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I'd hate to malign anyone. :-) --profg 08:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Wow, I'm in stitches. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want User:Mastcell to get blamed for things that I do. He seems like a nice young Australian fellow. As to Archives of Internal Medicine, as I mentioned just now on my talk page and as Tim Vickers has mentioned below, online full-text archives only go back to 1998; the article in question is from 1996, so it's just not available online. You'd have to go to a medical library and Xerox a hard copy. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WDM, do you think an RfC is necessary on OM & Jim? They've really gone overboard at the Homeopathy article and Talk page, to the point of obviously needing some admins to step in and warn them. Thoughts? --profg 09:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would help anything. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ProfG is still sore about being called on his edit in defense of WDM (in which he utterly missed the point), and his inability to understand WP:SPADE. If I recall, Mr Morrell took him to task as well.

In any case, in case you haven't read up on Wiki too much, I'll note that we are free to shred sources that are not up to snuff, and to explain why they are not up to snuff: this we have done. The defense of those sources has been the repetition of a singulary curious screed, that misses the points raised in opposition to the source. •Jim62sch• 16:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I only have access to the full text of Archives of Internal Medicine after 1998, sorry. Tim Vickers 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Send me an email, and I can send it to you. Guettarda 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Race and Egypt article

Sorry, I can't do this preemptively. If the edit warring starts again by all means ask for protection, but which version will get protected is entirely random. Tim Vickers 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for the barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. That was awfully kind of you. Have a good one! Carter | Talk to me 23:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's working wonderfully. I tried previously to combine several, with not so hot results, but when I found yours, I was so happy. It's amazing. Get's the job done, as you've seen. The only problem I've had, is that SOMETIMES, when I hit edit or history under pagenav, it says wikipedia doesn't recognize. Other than that, awesome. Carter | Talk to me 00:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Posted from Northmeister's talk:

What happened? I thought we were going to work on the EVP article? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On a short (maybe a week) wiki-break. I'll return thereafter to continue our work. --Northmeister 02:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

from spencaz

right ille stop sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencaz (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Thank you very much. I would like to give you the barnstar to be so friendly with each others. I will do it soon. Again thank you. Martial BACQUET 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the Barnstar Cireshoe 14:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

The two users warned have been reverting and deleting an article at will with no justification other than their POV. See Radionics Jenny^Len☤ 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Radionics

You are adding to an edit war, the article was sourced with NPOV. Please undo your revert Jenny^Len☤ 15:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page. We can discuss it there. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue can be resolved once you undo your unconstructive revert Jenny^Len☤ 15:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then my revert of my revert will be again reverted by someone else. It won't solve anything. Let's discuss it on your talk page and I can solve the problem. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You know well that you cannot start a discussion from a wrong doing. It puzzles me that an experienced editor aids to unconstructive edits following POVs. If you or the editors you aid have constructive edits, these are welcome as far as are sourced. If any source I mention is incorrect please point it out. I have inserted sources and text from both points of view so I respect NPOV. The same cannot be said of those who reverted. Please refrain from aiding edit wars and unconstructive edits. All other edits and corrections of incorrect text or sources are welcome. Jenny^Len☤ 15:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you make an edit and it's reverted then the first thing you do is revert that revert and then make significant changes in an attempt to form it a way that the original reverter won't revert again. If the reverter does revert again (with summary and explanation) then leave it as is. Don't revert again. Take it to the talk page and discuss it there. There seems to be a discussion occurring on the page, thus any more reverts on your part shouldn't be done. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I daren't make the protection myself, as I made the original change. I support its protection, however. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Though the version it's protected with is irrelevant to me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, since she recruited Librarian as an edit-warrior-by-proxy [1] Perhaps a little protection is in order... Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You know very well that I didn't go to Librarian2, I just left her a thanks. But please by all means keep the mascarade if it helps you Oh, by the way everyone can see who is canvassing by some messages left around... Jenny^Len☤ 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I give you this barnstar for your kindness. You have been extremely kind to me and each others. Martial BACQUET 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. Martial BACQUET 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stand down

You know as well as I do that I was not recruited, it is enough to see the message and time, it was a thank you note for an spontaneous edit. I strongly request to stop this nonsense, I will not tolerate this kind of childish game with my integrity as editor. This is my last message on this subject ℒibrarian2 16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not referring to you but to the editor in questions attempt to recruit this editor. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying with your recent message at my talk page. I however must point out that what I see in the link you provide is a request for administrator intervention from an editor under edit war, not canvassing ℒibrarian2 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not the faintest idea of what was your latest message about ℒibrarian2 20:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. I was not interested in that, I just pointed out how it looked to me ℒibrarian2 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Panda

This Guy, DonMare Deleted my prod template on Sexual Harassment Panda. I'm just an RCP, I don't know how to handle this kind of thing. Do I give him vandal4im or just report him? --Amaraiel 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominate it for deletion if you want. See WP:AFD. Users can remove PROD's but not AFD tags. Go through the process of nominating it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment#Homeopathy

This is a note to inform you that the article on Homeopathy has been listed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment for review to see if it still meets the Good Article Criteria. Editors are encouraged to comment on this nomination and reach consensus on the specific concerns raised by reviewers. Tim Vickers 22:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

parapsychology change

Hi. Sorry, but I'm new to this. Did you feel that the my recent change to the parapsychology article was inappropriate content-wise, or did I just put it in the wrong part of the article? Should it have been in the "Criticism" section, under "Selection bias and meta-analysis"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schub001 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 03:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

SM565 message

Hi

I sent to Tim VIckers thie following message.: If you feel you want to comment send me a message. thanks

I hope this is the right section to write this. I would like to ask for your opinion regarding the recent edit problems in the Homeopathy article. I apologize for the length of the message.

I did not do any “edit war” and I don’t know why it was perceived that way.

I had many objections about the Neutral Point of View of the Homeopathy article and have been trying to discuss this with all the editors for a month.In the discussion page it is stated that we should not edit anything in the article if we have not reached a consensus.

Later on we discussed with wikidudeman if it should be added in the introduction that Homeopathy has some therapeutic effect based on published studies, which have the same qualifications with the cited articles. He agreed. The user Wikidudeman replied that.: The version 2 days ago did all of that. It mentioned that no clinical studies have proven the efficacy of Homeopathy and that some studies have shown results above placebo. However that has all been deleted by Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin since then. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I deleted it? Really? Got proof? •Jim62sch• 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Mostly OrangeMarlin. 1 2 Though tagging a section as POV when it's clearly referenced doesn't help much either. Nor does saying it needs to be "taken out and shot". That's very unhelpful. It's not constructive. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Could you possibly be any lamer? •Jim62sch• 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Insults aren't helpful... Wikidudeman (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No one took any action to revert the edit. I tagged the specific section under dispute and gave 5 specific reasons in a long paragraph summarizing my objections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy SM565 - why The neutrality of the introduction and "clinical trials" are disputed.

I did not delete or edit anything thinking that the discussion about the controversial matter should be open and should invite the individual reader to investigate. Is this wrong?

My tag was removed and I kept tagging it. The other users, who disagreed with our opinion (me and docboat ) kept removing the tag. In other words they did not want to announce in the article that there is a disagreement about Homeopathy’s efficacy in the discussion page.

Of course I made more than 3 edits ( tags) and Adam Cuerden blocked my account: The reason given for Sm565's block is: "WP:3RR after warning, with a side of particularly rude and vitriolic POV-pushing.".! I’m pretty sure Adam Cuerden –as everything was happening fast - did not have the time to see who had been really vitriolic and rude, who reverted wikidudeman edit without discussion, who used insults and he blocked the wrong account. I’m sure it was an honest mistake and he will recognize it.

I respect all the labor from the serious editors here even if I may disagree with them. But if they don’t even want to accept publicly in the article that there is disagreement on Homeopathy’s efficacy there is not even a chance for a consensus.

In my opinion, the only consensus, which is rational, is that there are 2 different opinions on Homeopathy’s efficacy supported by scientific evidence from valid sources. Both should be stated proportionally. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7259/471/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14734789&dopt=medline

Even if the pro-homeopathy view is held by a minority, it is an important enough minority, it exists even in the World Health Organization. A draft of a paper supporting homeopathy triggered an article in the BBC and criticism in the Lancet. This pro homeopathy view in addition to homeopathy’s principle objections (cited of course) on the criticism and the qualified studies which support HOmeopathy should be included in the article - I do believe. Even the main editor of the article agreed with me in this. I don’t see any serious and bona fide excuse not to do it or at least not to state that the issue is under dispute.

Finally, I think that the examination of the history of the behavior of the editors could be a valid critirion in evaluating my comment.

I would like to hear your opinion -if you have the time - about these this issue.

Thanks for reading.--Sm565 04:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sm565 I would advise a reading of WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia policy currently does not specify a need to give equal ground or any ground at all to theories considered to be pseudoscience. -Icewedge 05:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this pseudoscience? ( these studies have the same qualifications with the ones used in the article) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7259/471/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14734789&dopt=medline

--Sm565 07:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

All relevant studies need to be mentioned in a proper context. Even the ones above. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that some studies have shown homeopathy to have positive results. This is a big difference from claiming it actually works given the massive amount of alternative studies which contradict it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeoempathy and stability

Improvement over time is good for any article, whether the improvements are major or not. But the current history doesn't seem to suggest that only improvements are going on, but rather, that signifigant portions of the article are being edit warred over to various degrees. With so many competing opinions going on and apparently spilling into article edits, its very difficult to tell whether the end result of all the arguing will result in an article that has actually improved, and with a subject as apparently complicated as this, I can imagine some parts of the article improving and some parts getting worse through the course of all the conflict. In a way, delisting the article now is somewhat convienent, GA status isn't supposed to be just a permanent stamp of approval, but rather, a symbol representing that somebody (or sombodies) have recognized that the current status of an article fully complies with the GA criteria. If an article was made a GA, then the article constantly changed in various ways which would affect GA status, it would be to such an article's benefit to be re-evaluated again, so that editors of an article can have a confirmation that changes to an article are indeed resulting in higher quality coverage of a topic. So, in short, delisting an article because its very unstable doesn't necessarily mean someone thinks the article is of low quality, but rather, that it would be a good idea for the article to be re-evaluated again in the future, so that once new content has been implemented and disputes have been settled, the grand result of all the discussion can safely be re-validated as being fairly good in quality. Homestarmy 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My diff seems to indicate otherwise, especially near the bottom, some major restructing seems to of occured concerning countries. Also, at the time it was passed, there seem to of been other specific cases of edit warring nearby that I didn't cite, since I was only looking back a few days from October 2, not from when the article was passed. I think that it would be a good idea to just let the article not have GA status for now simply so that the end result of all the confrontations that are manifesting themselves in the article history (and, I presume, the talk page, though I haven't examined it much) can be validated as still good. Besides, even if I was convinced that the article was stable, i'd still have to actually examine it for quality, and i'm not sure you'd like the result of that, I saw what appeared to be some weaselly language being fought over and/or implemented.... Homestarmy 16:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That may be the diff from when it was passed, but my diff goes a few days earlier, and indicates that a good deal more changes occured. While many of them do seem to be the addition and formatting of references, many of them also seem to be re-wordings of certain sentences and paragraphs in ways that aren't always minor, and might not necessarily be improvements. Examining stability is a somewhat subjective thing, but the window of mass changes and edit wars seems to extend back to maybe less than a week before it was passed. I just don't see what advantage is to be gained by having this article remain a GA, when it would be so much better for it to be re-nominated for examination again when everyone decides what this article should ultimately read like in general. Homestarmy 16:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Forgive me if I've not been that enthusiastic - I don't actually like Homeopathy much as a subject, so if I'm not feeling that good, it becomes a chore.

I think Orangemarlin is being a bit harsh on you. In the context of alternative medicine articles, almost all of which are simply awful, homeopathy stands as a rare example of an article that actually attempts to do it well.

Is it perfect? No. It's awkward in a couple points, and, yes, it wouldn't be unreasonable to be a bit more critical here and there. Could it be better? Yes. But you have done an excellent job in getting it this far that is unique in alternative medicine articles, as far as I'm aware, and that deserves more praise than you're getting from people who haven't participated in the process.

But, you ask a few direct questions:

WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE: Well, technically, yes. Homeopathy violates basic principles of science, and so comes under the guidelines for pseudoscience and fringe views. A little more criticism wouldn't be inappropriate, as well as a clear statement of its fringiness. Again, however, I'd like to point out that it's better, in this respect, than pretty much any other alternative medicine article. If we want to make it better, we are going to have to be willing and ready to get some people very, very angry at us.

WP:VERIFY - Well, maybe a few:

• 57. http://www.1-800homeopathy.com/enews/march05.php
• 58. Jones, Kathryn. Materia Medica: Remedy Information. Retrieved on 2007-07-24.

Both are, perhaps, used beyond what is justified.

Note, however, that the following five seem appropriately used, and I'd resist changing them: They are merely examples of the extremes of homeopathic viewpoints, and thus used appropriately.

• 60 Norland, Misha (1998). The Homœopathic Proving of Positronium. Retrieved on 2007-07-24.
• 61 CLARKE, John Henry. MATERIA MEDICA. Retrieved on 2007-07-24.
• 62 English, Mary. The Homeopathic proving of 'Tempesta' the Storm. Retrieved on 2007-07-24.
• 63 Wansbrough, Charles. THE BERLIN WALL: A REMEDY OF POWER. Retrieved on 2007-07-24.
• 64 Doheny, Kathleen. Homeopathy: Natural Approach or All a Fake?. Retrieved on 2007-07-24.

Anyway, that's my honest assessment. Hope it helps. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Frustration with Homeopathy

OK, I'm going to extend an attempt at a truce (I don't think a peace treaty is available, so we take what we can get). So, let me discuss a few items, and see if you at least get my observations:

1. Ownership. This is a big thing with me as you have noticed. I am not wasting my valuable day in tracking down all the diffs, so let me just say what I've generally noticed. Only you appear to reply in defense of the article. Maybe that's not technically a violation of ownership (not like there's real rules on it), but it gives the overall impression. Additionally, you give the appearance (justifiably or not, intentionally or not) of being the guardian of the article. Almost every revert (whether it's from one "side" or another) is done by you. You do sound defensive when any editor critiques your article. I haven't counted, but I swear 75% of the edits to Talk:Homeopathy over the past few weeks are yours. You need to invite in other editors.
2. Consensus. Actually, this where I have the biggest problem. I will admit that consensus may not be available to us, but you need to give it a try. A straw vote every once in a while would be helpful. But more than that, and it was a point made during your RfA process, you don't seem to have the desire (or with less good faith the skill-set) to develop a consensus. Guess what? I know that there are people who think that Homeopathy is the greatest medical advancement since Hippocrates. I know the history has to be described. I know that there are some articles that support it (but if you really read the articles, they aren't from what I would consider reliable journals, but we can live with it).
3. NPOV. Yes, the article is much better (and take that as a compliment). But, we have a moral, possibly legal (but I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV) consequences of someone thinks that Wikipedia is giving medical advice. Critiques (or even analysis, if we want to be neutral) need to be stronger (no, I can't provide a diff, because it is how we read the article). I think Scientific Analysis should be right after the lead, or at a minimum, right after the history section. I think the lead should be cut in words, where the criticism makes up more than 50%. We can't be subtle, because, not giving good faith to the casual reader, if a critique is at the bottom of a 5,000 word article, who's going to read it? Who reads references other than a few of us geeky types?
4. Undue weight/pseudoscience/fringe. Too much weight is being given to Homeopathy working. Again, it's an impression, because so much verbiage is used to describe history, what is Homeopathy, etc. It sounds like it has 150 years of valid science backing it. I don't even like when you use "medicine" in the article, except to say "it's not medicine."
5. Recommendation. Look, you don't have to come to a truce with me or not (but I'll tell you we can further together than apart). There's nothing more obnoxious than Intelligent design as a "theory" of science (and I use that loosely). However, the article is balanced, NPOV, and rarely is edit-warred (at least these days, it was a few months ago). Look at the lead. It gets to the point of the junk science almost immediately. Homeopathy deserves the same treatment. It needs a fair and balanced presentation, but it also needs a statement right up front that it is pseudoscience (you use quackery, which I actually think is too harsh, believe it or not, but we don't have to go there).

So, my personal style is to fight hard for what I believe in. But I also am not a nutjob who thinks it's better to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I will argue until I know that it's time to compromise. I'm willing to do so now, but I also have to get the impression (actually more than that, but I'll take what I can get) that you actually are willing to accept some of my advice (and opinion) I wrote above. Please, it's not going to get you anywhere with me if you keep the mantra of "prove it" up. An article like this one is hard to be definitive...it's a feeling. Just like I get the feeling that the ID article is approximately fair. And remember, I stand here not saying it's my way or the highway, because you certainly give me the impression you think I think like that (make sense?)--but you do need to know I also don't think you're completely right about this article. Where's the mid-ground that gets this done? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First let me say that I find it very frustrating myself that after days and days of my essentially begging you to provide some explanation or details of your criticism and accusations you only make this post after Tim Vickers leaves a note on your page about your previous actions.

Secondly, I will address each of your points that you bring up in the order that they are brought up.

1. Ownership - It is true that most of the edits in defense of the article are mine and many of the comments on the talk page are mine. This is because I am a pro-active and involved editor who wants to improve the article and has put a lot of hard work into it. You state that most of the reverts on the homeopathy article are mine however this is simply untrue. A look at the last 250 edits to the article shows that the vast majority of my edits are not reverts. In fact only a few are and in those cases they aren't "simply reverts" but revisions and then attempts to improve the section reverted. Concerning the request that I invite other editors to the page. I have done EVERYTHING in my power to get a wide range of editors and comments on the page. I've issued 2 request for comments. I've left notes on user talk pages. I've also put the article through peer review. There's nothing else that I can do to get other editors to contribute.
2. Consensus - You assert that I don't have the desire or skill set to develop consensus. Please elaborate on this. Please provide one single example of where I have not attempted to develop consensus concerning an issue.
3. NPOV - Going with the flow of the article, The "Scientific analysis" needs to exist AFTER the explanation of what homeopathy is and how it works. Wikipedia's job isn't to attack homeopathy but to explain what it is, how it supposedly works, it's history and relevant criticism, etc. It would make no sense to include the medical analysis section before any explanation of what homeopathy even is is given. Putting the Scientific analysis section before the "Philosophy" or "History" sections really would not make any sense as the reader, reading down from the top would be introduced to the criticism of homeopathy prior to even being introduced to what homeopathy even is.
4. Undue weight/pseudoscience/fringe - Please elaborate on why you think that the history section gives the impression of "150 years of successful science". I fail to see any such thing upon reading it.
5. You state that I shouldn't ask for proof however you need to realize that I can't interpret your personal feelings without any examples or details. You say that you can't provide any proof that the homeopathy article has flaws or errors and it's "just a feeling"? How am I supposed to even begin to work with that? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Two points. One, never mind. It's too difficult to talk to you. Second, I did not do shit because of Tim Vickers. I did it for a wholly other reason. Get real dude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too difficult to talk to. I just disagree with what you say and I'm expressing my disagreements in a civil and adult manner. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting into this talk page with advice to you both, these are just some thoughts and suggestions.

1. Ownership. This is a difficult issue. It is certainly true that OM feels that WDM is showing ownership. I don't have the impression to the same extent, but think I can see where this come from. WDM is indeed one of the most active editors on homoeopathy at the moment and the great improvements in the article are due to a great part to his efforts. However, something I notice on the talk page is that WDM often focusses on the parts of statements that he does not agree with and addresses only these, while sometimes leaving agreement as implicit. I think this approach lead to the impression of argumentativeness. However, OM you are not helping at all here and consistently push your POV in an aggressive manner. You need to realise that neither side of this argument can own the article and that pushing any one POV with no attempt to reach consensus will just produce an unstable article fluctuating randomly from one extreme to the other.
2. Consensus. From my perspective complete consensus is impossible since bug-eyed loons appear occasionally. However, you two need to learn to work together and your viewpoints are really not that far apart so this is entirely possible. Consider your heads banged together in the politest possible way.
3. NPOV. The current lead is a reasonable balance, but could use another few history and beliefs sentences. A compromise on criticism might be to include some account of the critical response to homoeopathy in the history section. There are some quotes in the criticism section that could be used as the basis for this. That could provide balance while keeping the necessary arrangement of saying what something is before explaining why it doesn't work.

Anyway, those are my opinions. Tim Vickers 02:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The wisdom of Solomon, that. And no, I'm not being sarcastic. Thanks for the great advice, Tim; I hope it's taken. --profg 03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

RickK Barnstar for antivandalism

Cool, thanks, didn't realise I'd done that much, but... sweet. mattbuck 19:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Barn Star :)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all your vandalism fighting... Tiddly-Tom 19:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

I just wanted to drop you a line to say thanks for the barnstar. I would've said something sooner but, ironically, I was busy reverting vandalism.--Sethacus 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll stop editing EVP

However, the article is quite atrocious right now. Someone should tag it with {{totally disputed}}. Note that the article claims that there are EVP "experiments" and goes into detail about claimed research which cannot be verified by reliable sources. ScienceApologist 14:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you

Thank you for your gift! Very much appreciated. And all the best with going through editor review. You seem to be a very dedicated contributor. Bobo. 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Ioeth#The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Wow, thanks! First barnstar I've ever gotten.  :-) --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you also for mine. Tiddly-Tom 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for mine as well; it is greatly appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And very belated thanks for mine - the second from you! Gosh! Philip Trueman 18:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hodgepodge

Hi there. Hodgepodge worked pretty well for me, although it was occasionally unstable on my laptop (Camino, Mac OS X 10.4), so I switched back to plain old twinkle. I think the issues were mostly with the MarkS's buttons and WikEd, but I didn't do a thorough enough test to be sure. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

references homeopathy article

Hi

I would like to hear your opinion (if you got sometime ) about my Sources Interpretation and counter critisism and 3 questions. Thanks

[2]

--Sm565 23:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Will later. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if I made it clear - I think this could be a good article if NOPV could be balanced in the introduction, in the clinical studies and some other minor issues. I m not talking about content only. I will explain what I mean. Best --Sm565 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got a question about you're monobook...

What code makes the edges smooth? I've got a near copy of you're code (Hey, never said it was my own, so it's not plagiarism), but when I try to modify it the thing goes kerplunk. Just how much of a pansy is it, for I truely wish to get some of the script. Great code btw. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 10-5-2007 • 00:10:43

I'm not sure what you're asking. What edges smooth? The tabs? How did you know that they were smooth? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, school seems so long yet short at the same time... I used your
importscript('User:Wikidudeman/Wikidudemandeluxe.js');
|
|
V
importscript('User:Yamakiri on Firefox/deluxe.js');
But I can't quite figure out how you made the edges on you're monobook "curvy" or "rounded" or "smooth". That's really cool, like allot of things you've got in there, but I was trying to modify a copy I made of it, and the edges become square again, and the only tabs are pagenav and the one that links to the page you're viewing.

It's part of twinkle. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)