Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:28, 24 February 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Proposed deletion of Neuromusculoskeletal

Hello, DVMt, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Neuromusculoskeletal, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing!Template:Z79 PamD 08:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Apologies - the standard "proposed deletion warning" template seems to be malfunctioning and produced the above automated message without saying why I proposed deletion, which is that it seems to be an unsourced dictionary definition with little scope for expansion into a full WP article. PamD 08:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

January 2013

Hello, I'm Raeky. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Chiropractic without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! — raekyt 22:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Srike warning. — raekyt 23:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Hi DVMt, and welcome to Misplaced Pages, since I hadn't met you before. I started working on the Chiropractic article about 3 years ago, since I initially thought it was overly critical of the health risks of spinal manipulation. I haven't been around much recently, but I did notice you were running into some friction. As you can see, this article is phenomenally controversial. I learned from experience that the best way forward in circumstances like these is to discuss changes first, but if you choose to be bold and make changes straightaway, to follow WP:BRD if others revert you--meaning you go through one cycle of reverts and additions and then go directly to the talk page. It can be frustrating when your changes are undone, especially when little or no comment is made as to why or when the revert is a blanket one across multiple smaller edits, and as you noted that can even seem like vandalism. Still, I'd encourage you to take it as a sign that you changed too much too quickly for other editors' comfort and to go and propose individual changes on the talk page, including your reasoning. Often in smaller chunks other editors will be more receptive to changes. Also, giving others a chance to comment before you add contact back in builds good faith and lowers the tension at the article overall. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, and I hope you stay around. Cheers, Ocaasi 04:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi. I did make a bunch of smaller edits (5-6 I believe) to see what kind of editors I'm dealing with. Rather than taking down 1 edit and explaining themselves they just did a massive blanket revert. I sense that there may be something greater here at play but I will not jump to conclusions. But a definite pattern. TippyGoomba and Raeky are the type of editors who are primarily reverters, and are extremely vague about why they did it. They provide no specifics and present no alternatives so I'm negotiating with myself. I limit myself to 1RR a day, which is me exercising restraint when I know the game is rigged. I don't see any genuine attempts of dissenting involved editors with the exception of Alexbrn who use talk constructively and who present alternatives. Although we may agree to disagree, his style is honorable. I can tell when some editors are trying discredit me (as opposed to the content of edits) and trying to build up a case with admins in the future. I won't get uncivil and stoop to their level. But they should be aware that I won't be bullied here or anywhere. I agree that the article can be a mine field but perhaps your watchful eye can maybe separate some of the wheat from chaff... red herrings everywhere in that tak page. Thanks for your reply. DVMt (talk)

I wish I could get involved there, but I pace myself pretty carefully when it comes to conflict and this is an area where I can't really spare the energy at the moment. I would seek out other editors who you respect on both "sides" and build consensus among those who seem most willing to reason. I told Puhlaa anything that I know a while back and I would trust his guidance. You can also stop by the WikiProject Medicine talk page at WT:MED. You won't necessarily find eager chiropractic supporters, but you will find people who care deeply about properly representing the best evidence. Working with some of them helped me to evaluate my own views on medicine. If you haven't before, give WP:MEDRS a really close read, because regardless of what you think mainstream medicine/alternative medicine, that document is the community consensus for all medical claims. It still leaves discussion about neutrality, but narrows the debate considerably when it comes to which sources are acceptable. Last words of advice. When you can't agree on outcome, try to agree on principles. Starting at the bottom can help you build consensus without people feeling like you 'won' something that they had to 'lose'. Ocaasi 05:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:PSMED

Thanks :) The credit for this goes to a lot of people, mostly in WikiProject Medicine who created the pages from which I more or less just wholesale copied (with attribution of course). Still, there's value in presentation and putting everything in one place, so I hope that others--especially newcomers--find it useful. Thanks again for your nice words. Ocaasi 05:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spinal manipulation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobilize (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Moosehadley 08:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thinker

Hey DVMt, I would object, but for policy reasons that reflect community consensus on this point. Please review Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Images#Choosing_images. As it explains, images should be consistent with NPOV, but they don't have to exist at all, and where they do exist they need to be directly related to the article content, not just a general category (such as Philosophy). One way to deal with images that reflect a POV, is to simply balance them with other images and create NPOV that way, when taken as a whole. Also properly attributing an image with a caption can explain what particular aspect of an article the image is representing/illustrating--that's not inherently not POV if done carefully. Thanks for checking, let me know me if I can explain further. Ocaasi 01:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't be in any rush, but there are 5 pillars, a few core policies, tens of total policies (55 now, I think) and many more guidelines: You can see them all together at WP:P&G. A good place to start, at your leisure is with the plain and simple guide, and you can keep the manual of style handy for more education/browsing. Mostly you just learn by doing, talking to others, copying from people who seem to have a clue, reading up on policies/guidelins when you get a chance or have a need. It helps to learn how to search for them when you need them and consult them if you're unsure. You can search for a policy/guideline/information page by typing WP:NAMEOFTOPICHERE into the search bar, like WP:References or WP:Images or WP:NPOV (most of these have multiple shortcuts so you don't have to get the name exactly right). Also, drop by the Teahouse where you can ask new questions of experienced and friendly editors who are there just to be helpful and easy-to-understand. Or, keep checking in with me if you like, any time, really. Cheers, Ocaasi 02:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

These are a great resource, thank you for condensing them all into one clean space for me. I can't guarantee I'm going to become an expert WP policy wonk, but I will do what I can to inform myself. I appreciate your offer of assistance, and I'm sure I'm going to take you up on it at some point! DVMt (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

I think it's great that you asked at WP:MED and no problem at all mentioning me. I'm making some notes about your rewrite and will try and get them to you this week, depending on how some other projects are going. Cheers! Ocaasi 02:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Unfortunately my attempt at transparency has resulted in Doc James deleting the WHOLE article because he disagrees with one study which suggested equivalence of SMT for back pain. Anyways, thanks for taking the time to give the rewrite an honest good look and I look forward to seeing your proposals! DVMt (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Checking in

I see you've been busy, working with editors, soliciting feedback from noticeboards, and coming to compromises based on sources. I think it's going about as well as could be expected given the controversial nature of the subject. Hang in there! Also, I was very pleased to see you speak so highly of the recent Cochrane review, even with its finding. Cochrane is an excellent source and as long as you and other editors at the article commit to following reviews like it, you should have no problem. 1) I did think Raeky's point about the introduction being accessible to a layman was important. 2) My first instinct is that Chiropractic is obviously a health care profession, albeit a CAM one. It seems Puhlaa agreed on that point. Interesting thought piece: is Homeopathy a health care profession? It's always good to test your assumptions with edge cases and try to defend what makes one qualify and another not. As always, the sources ultimately resolve these disputes. 3) I haven't had time to give a more detailed review, partly because you're in good hands with the editors there and also I doubt I could meaningfully add to the discussion, at least not without investing a bit of time and energy I plan to put elsewhere these days. Drop by if you want a consult on something specific. Otherwise, keep working with good editors, stay patient, rely on sources to resolve disputes, and continue your way up the learning curve--you're moving quickly! Ocaasi 22:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ocaasi. It's been a steep learning curve indeed. I am trying to follow the process and am still learning. But, for the most part, I am pleased with the collaboration. There are a few editors who may be out of their depths and I really am glad that WP has something like this to address those WTF!!!!! moments!  :) Regarding homeopathy, I do not think it meets the criteria, in North America anyways, to be considered a profession. It requires regulation, licenses, oversight and all the background machinery (research, education, politics) in place. Also, the evidence in homeopathy is very lacking at the moment. DVMt (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is being discussed at talk per recommendations. Please join in discussions. Cochrane is well represented within the article and we must not confused SMT and manual therapy. DVMt (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Chiropractic controversy and criticism

I've removed the AFD tag from this article, as it pointed to an old debate. If you wish to re-nominate the article, post a rationale on my talk page or at WT:AFD, or follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ~ Did 17:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of chiropractic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transverse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits to your comments

Hi DVMt, I just wanted to let you know directly that I added to and organized your list of sources at the chiropractic talk page that were addressing if chiropractic is a health profession. Also, I modified your comment at the NPOV noticeboard to make it neutral. The RFC at the NPOV noticeboard must represent both 'sides' involved and thus should ask the question in a completely neutral manner. Sorry if I have offended you with my edits, feel free to revert me if that is the case. Otherwise, regards :) Puhlaa (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Puhlaa. I was simply stating the question asking if the sources were reliable and if the sources being used appropriately. Since this was my first foray at npov notice board I didn't know the exact protocol. I don't take offense to your edit anything for concision. DVMt (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Spinal adjustment

If you want to nominate this article for deletion then you need to follow the three steps here. Just putting the template on the article isn't enough by itself. Hut 8.5 22:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I will do the proper nomination in due time DVMt (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Very Important Notification

Your codpiece is open--86.198.231.55 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What is a codpiece? DVMt (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"cod·piece, A pouch, esp. a conspicuous and decorative one, attached to a man's breeches or close-fitting hose to cover the genitals, worn in the 15th and 16th centuries." Looks like a vandal doing this to a bunch of user pages, he'll be dealt with probably, so ignore it. — raekyt 00:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

April Fools is still a few weeks away! Thanks for the heads up Raeky. DVMt (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Doctor of Chiropractic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Regulate, Rehabilitation, Naturalism and Mobilize

History of chiropractic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Regulate and Naturalism

Chiropractic treatment techniques (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mobilize

Philosophy of Chiropractic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rehabilitation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge history

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you recently tried to give Schools of chiropractic a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Schools of Chiropractic. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Misplaced Pages has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

The merge history template was urging me to post this template. (What I said on the talk page about using the {{copied}} template was wrong - that template is for use when copying between different language wikis). FiachraByrne (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why dont you propose a specific sentence for the efficacy of SMT for low back pain that editors can discuss. AT the moment, the discussion at project medicine and at chiropractic are just circular and have no 'primary focus'. You could consider adding a proposal for text (only pertaining to LBP tx) and ask if the sources you have presented (for and against) is ok to support your proposed text?Puhlaa (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they're circular, if anything we identified specifically outlier papers and mainstream papers on the topic of SM and LBP. I had proposed a text but it got lost n the discussion. I will find it and post it clearly at WP:MED Talk? DVMt (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I found it! "Scientific consensus is that manual and manipulative therapies are equivalent to other therapies such as exercise, standard medical or physiotherapy for mechanical musculoskeletal disorders such as low back pain.". Do you find this reasonable? DVMt (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that 'equivalent for back pain' is ok, but should probably qualify any other nmsk condition with a 'may be', as the evidence is not as strong as for back pain.Puhlaa (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so "Scientific consensus is that manual and manipulative therapies are equivalent to interventions such as standard medical care, exercise therapy or physiotherapy for LBP and may be effective for other neuromusculoskeletal issues such as ..." DVMt (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am ok with that! It is consistent with the available sources.Puhlaa (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

For your rfc, I would stick to the back pain part of your proposal. We can discuss how to present 'other nmsk conditiions' after lbp has consensus.Puhlaa (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I will do it at the spinal manipulation page, as it is the most appropriate venue. DVMt (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Spinal_manipulation. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — raekyt 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)