Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:08, 13 July 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Drpolich! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Addbot (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

--SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 70.131.107.176 for beginning to use your old account again. It helps to keep things in one place and will also help to avoid accusations of attempting to avoid scrutiny from other editors, a practice which is forbidden here. -- Fyslee / talk 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy warning

Please notice that homeopathy-related articles are under article probation. Because of massive edit wars on the article, the administrators, by consensus, have established additional ground rules for editing the article homeopathy and related articles. P.D.: Notice that by editing those articles you put yourself under the probation terms, since the talk pages have a notice at the top of them --Enric Naval (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi. I realise that you feel strongly about this, but altering the Homeopathy article like this will probably just end with your changes being instantly reverted and you being blocked due to the special measures mentioned above. If you want to make a change, the best way would be to work at building a case and support on the talk page first. I'm willing to work with you on this, though we're from opposite sides of the debate, as I believe your knowledge may be valuable to wikipedia. We can discuss things here or on my talk page if you like, or keep to the homeopathy talk page (although we'd have to stay on point and topic there, as otherwise we'd get told off). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you the admin? If not who is? Drpolich (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I think the admin you want is User:PhilKnight. THe best way to deal with blocks is to keep calm and be reasonable (reminding me of the old saying "Forgive your enemies, for it is like heaping burning hot coals upon their heads). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The admin who blocked you is PhilKnight (talk · contribs). If you would like to have a second admin (not me, as I'm clearly involved in this dispute) evaluate the block, put {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your talk page. To any reviewing admin: I believe this user was blocked for disruptive editing on Homeopathy, which is under article probation. Here are the diffs: ,. Context is available here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I'd just like to point out that I haven't undone your changes (look at the history on the homeopathy page). If you could correct your statement on ColW's talk page as soon as you're able I'd be most grateful. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The information that Sarcasticidealist provided regarding appeals possibly wasn't entirely correct, the process is explained here.--PhilKnight (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with you Phil. I am just glad that I know who you are. I thought that Ses was the admin and he clearly cares. My question to you Phil is how do you handle a case were there is no possiblity for concensus. Also, why not remove the offending passage until we get reasonable wording? Drpolich (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ses- I can't edit anything now. I will change after my probation Drpolich (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ses- Ok, yes I am biased because I practice homeopathy daily. First as a kindness take a look at the photos on my website. I particularly put up extreme photos that can't be otherwise explained. I like to use children whenever possible because of the placebo effect. http://www.dupagehomeopathic.com/homeopathic_photographs.html. I agree that there is not enough research on homeopathy. Some of it I can explain, and some of it I can't. First, there are very few in the homeopathic community that has a scientific background. I tried it somewhat by accident before I knew what it was. I am not sure that I would have tried it if I knew how impossible it was. My entire career in engineering was trouble shooting problem in manufacturing, design etc. I ended up being the director of engineering in the cellular world. Then I quit to practice homeopathy. I know that I look at things completely different than most of my colleagues. In generally, I have not been impressed by the design of the experiments that I have reviewed. This may be part of the problem.

However, the main problem is a fundamental law of homeopathy, like cures like, requires that different remedies be used for the same condition. This further complicated because that prescription is doctor dependant and many are poorly trained and have a relatively low accuracy rate. Let me explain. Lets say that 10 people come in with Ecema. I have to spend 2 hours trying to match their symptoms as closely as possible to a remedy. If I don't match the remedy properly then nothing gets better. If I do, the patient gets well. (On my web page I present a theory on why we must match it in the video). If 10 people walk in with Eczema, I might use 8 different remedies. Most studies try to show that a one remedy or a combination is useful for a particular condition and don't allow for the individualization. However, a fundamental law of homeopathy is the individualization, so the experiments don’t work. We are trying to fit homeopathy to the allopathy model and it will never work.

I believe that there are probably conditions that tend to be associated with remedies but I have not found any so far. Right now, I have had 2 cases of Plagiocephaly that have responded to the same remedy. If I get a 3rd, I may try to get funding for a study on plagiocephaly using that single remedy. You should realize that within the homeopathic community it is heretical to suggest that a medical condition might be dominated by a single homeopathic remedy. Anyway, if this trend holds true, it would be awesome because it can't be placebo due to the age of the kids and I don't think anyone will dispute bone remodeling.

I know this seems far fetched. Ask me any questions because I know I would have been skeptical had I not seen it work before I knew what it was. I know of some positive studies out there and I will try to reference them for you. I just have to find them. They may be at my office. Drpolich (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but a few positive studies are not going to overhelm meta-reviews from prestigious journals --Enric Naval (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"If I don't match the remedy properly then nothing gets better. If I do, the patient gets well." I think you may be putting the cart before the horse here. Brunton (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and 98% of those studies violate a fundamental law of homeopathy "Like Cures Like". We did not put this law into place so we could explain why homeopathy does not do well in double blind placebo controlled trials, it is what "homo" same "pathy" therapy comes from. Do you now understand why is is nearly impossible to use the weight of evidence to indicate if homeopathy works? It would be like testing Lexipro (depressive drug) on patients who have hypertension and saying it is useless.

Cart and horse thing, I don't get. Drpolich (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm understanding Brunton's comment correctly, you are placing the conclusions before the premise.

You should first make a theory an hypothesis, then devise the experiment to test that hypothesis, and then decide if the hypothesis works depending on whether it predicted correctly the experiment results. That would mean making a list of symptoms and making a hypothesis on which remedies work with each set of symptoms, then finding 15 people that have that set of symptoms (and that they have all the same symptoms, so you can overcome the problem that you mention about matching symptoms), give the remedy to 5 of them, give a placebo to other 5, and nothing to the other 5. And perform all the experiment according to the initial hypothesis without changing it half-way into the experiment to avoid distortions. Your experiences with patients are not controlled and there are lots of unaccounted for factors afecting them, and there is not a unified hypothesis, you are using different criteria for each case.

I'm not enough knowledgeable to explain the problems with trying to test "Like Cures Like". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

12 hour block

You have been blocked for disruptive editing in articles that are covered by the discretionary sanctions. In future, please use the talk page to establish consensus instead of edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Phil, the problem is that as long as that language appears on the page, it seems that the other side is winning. Can we PLEASE, PLEASE remove it until the issue is resolved. It is better not not discuss it than have information which is really wrong Drpolich (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't going to happen, I suggest you carefully read Misplaced Pages:Consensus.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note that I am seeking clarity on the reasons for Phil's action at his talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Phil. I am also seeking consensus. However, many people who are editing this page do not understand homeopathy at all. It would be like having me edit a page on plasma wakefield acceleration which I know nothing about. In addition, the paragraph which I deleted is NOT according to concensus. So why do we keep leaving it there. I would not even mind if you just moved it down under a section labeled Critics. However, it does not represent a conscensus either way. Drpolich (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't really care about whose "side is winning" here, or about offensive language, or about whether editors understand or don't understand homeopathy (BTW, most do), we only care about NPOV, which requires that all sides of the issue be presented using Reliable sources, no matter if they are offending or not. Until you understand this (these wordings in our policies don't necessarily mean what they usually mean in the outside world), you're only going to continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages and get in trouble. It can also have unfortunate consequences for yourself in real life since your behavior here can become known in the real world. Please read our policies and follow them. BTW, "advocacy" is forbidden here. You are clearly advocating fringe beliefs rather than concentrating on working with editors who hold opposing POV in a collaborative manner to create an NPOV article. Please stop this behavior. -- Fyslee / talk 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)