Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:28, 3 November 2007

Modla has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Archives: Archive 1

Moratorium

OMG! This is wearing me down. Great find on the GlycoScience.org ownership. I did a similar check on fisherinstitute.org and found its registrant (McCuiston) mentioned here http://www.rickross.com/reference/mannatech/mannatech34.html. By the way, how about we not respond to anymore of the sales pitch on the discussion page until a valid source is provided? The discussion is fruitless at this point. Jim Dunning | talk 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on all fronts. I'll reply when possible to Cosmochao's content/source related points, but, like you're saying, I don't think it helps any of us to explain our every action; even Cosmochao doesn't have to do that, and his POV is a driving force for him. I don't know how many different ways I can say that I have no vested interest in the topic except for the fact that accuracy is important to me, so thank you for your explanation of that on the Mannatech talk page. I replied re: glycoscience.org because it seemed like a legitimate attempt on Cosmochao's part to bring in a potentially valid source, and I wanted to show why it probably doesn't pass muster. Hopefully this, and your good detective work regarding fisherinstitute.org, will help Cosmochao discern among competing sources of varying quality. Antelan 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Basophil

Hi there, Most of the articles that link to the dab page are referring to the immune cell Basophil, and this is clearly the most common usage of the term (here at least). I counted maybe four articles that were referring to the Anterior pituitary type out of the ~thirty five that are linking to the dab page. I was planning to correctly point these four articles, and had already noted on Basophil granulocyte that "basophil" redirects there and where to find the other type. The other information on the redirect page can be incorporated into basophilic. Does this sound reasonable?--DO11.10 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sounds great. Thanks for your response. Antelan 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Spammer blocked

Thanks for reverting User:194.44.134.242 - I've imposed block as per previous warning. David Ruben 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously

For god's sake Antelan, if you'd just given it a few minutes and discussed things on the talk page, we could have worked this out. For one thing, the lead has to cover a few things, and you left one of them out- physical mediumship. Don't buy into the portrayal of me you've heard from others at the ArbCom. That isn't accurate. This whole thing comes out of the fact that I've been a thorn in their sides by being effective, not my editing behavior. If it's editing behavior, they'd be more worried about ScienceApologist and Minderbinder. You and I don't have to do this. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Read my comments about patience. Antelan 02:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to revert it back to your version, go ahead. I won't war with you. The message above is a peace offering. Are you going to take it or not? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you didn't entirly leave out physical phenomena, but it needed more. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That is generous of you, but I'm not going to revert to my version. I don't WP:OWN the article, and I think that community input is warranted. If "for gods' sake Antelan" is how you want to introduce a peace offering, I'm "not inclined to acquiesce to your request." Martinphi, I think you are nice. I actually do. But I have concerns about the way you edit. So yes, I want to have peace with you, but it never should have come to this over my good-faith edit. Antelan 02:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there were "for god's sake" elements as well (: And your edits had real reasons behind them. I wish you'd have talked about your version before reverting. See my latest edits- I think they address all concerns. I don't know about the dictionary.com source, but if the skeptic's dictionary and the parapsychological association sources agree, I really think we have good enough sourcing for what's said there. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf education

Thanks for your comprehensive list of points to be dealt with in the Waldorf education article. These were well-taken and informed.

We have attempted to address all of your points - whether adequately or not, you may judge for yourself. Once again, thanks for helping with the process (and you are welcome to continue)! Hgilbert 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism in Parapsychology: merge debate

FYI: . I seem to recall you having some ideas for the Crit section. - LuckyLouie 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Antelan 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

the articles in question

Just so you know, I got the Controversy article fully protected bc it was turning into an edit war. Hopefully we can get some discussion going, but I feel like Martin is just going to wait out the protection (some of his deletions stand) and continue chopping away without discussion. I feel like this whole mess will go away once Martinphi gets the block he deserves for POV-pushing and sock/meatpuppetry. I may not agree with users such as Nealparr or others, but at least they are interested in discussion. VanTucky 23:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not even know the half of it. Martinphi has been a big part of what got admin User:ScienceApologist to resign from Misplaced Pages, and his edits have been a driving force pushing editors to request arbitration on the subject of the paranormal, as evidenced by his RfC. Antelan 23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky was edit warring, so I sandboxed it here. See what you think. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, you recently said the same thing about me. I find it hard to believe that you're always in the right and everybody else is just edit-warring. Saying that someone is warring purely by themselves, without an opponent who is likewise warring with them, I might add, sounds pretty preposterous. Sorry bud. Antelan 23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Really?

You said...

Ryan is right. Your logic is clear, and it will only help your argumentation to refrain from invective. Diffs are preserved forever, and magnanimity in the face of absurdity will give your actions more weight. Antelan 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is saying less is more absurdity? Because despite all the bogus accusations, that is all I am saying. All animosity to the side, do you really disagree that the article should present relevant information without the bulkiness? I'm not asking to exclude any criticisms though I am commonly accused of that for some reason I can't figure out. I don't understand how streamlined equals deletion. All the other sections are streamlined too. If you check the history of those articles, the consensus (just a few months ago) was against Martinphi's everything under the sun treatment of the topic. Where's the absurdity? --Nealparr 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think his argument makes sense, which is why I complimented VanTucky's logic. I'm not going to sit here and respond to your dissection of my every comment, especially when the absurdity is so obvious as it is in this case. However, for whatever it's worth, that is in no way a reference to your editing. Antelan 20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for dropping by. about those Sploooshman AfdsDGG 22:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I noticed your internet connection looked shoddy, and I didn't want to let those strange allegations stand uncontested, so thanks for tolerating me on your talk page. Antelan 23:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathans

Hi. I'm curious why you feel the seealso I added to Daniel Nathans is inappropriate. Would you feel better if I made Nathans be a dab page, with two entries, one for Daniel Nathans and the other for Nathan's Famous, instead of the redirect that it is currently? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I'll help you extend the list of "Nathans"-es on the dab, too. Antelan 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've got it going. How's that for a start? Antelan 03:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. I cleaned it up a bit. And, while we're at it, I'm thinking maybe nathan's should redirect to the new dab page as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm not that well-versed in dab's, can you tell me why you don't feel that brief descriptive detail (Nobel-prizewinning, fast-food, etc.) belongs? Thanks. Antelan 03:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The basic concept (per Mos:dab#Individual_entries is, The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. So, let's say I was looking for the place where I can buy hot dogs. I type "nathans" into a search box, and get to the dab page. I'm presented with two choices, one is described as an American microbiologist, the other as a restaurant chain. It should be instantly obvious that the hot dog place is the latter. Likewise, if I'm looking for the enzyme guy, it should be just as obvious that I want the first one. The extra text (Nobel-prizewinning, fast-food, etc) doesn't help me make that decision. If anything, it makes it harder since it gives me more text to read and sort through. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you for the thorough primer. Antelan 04:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon a good exampe of when putting in more details would be good for a dab page. In Gupta, under Revolutionaries, there are five people listed. If I had read something about "An Indian revolutionary named Gupta" and wanted to learn more about him, I wouldn't know which one to click on. Some additional information such as when they lived or which revolution they were involved in would help here. There's no hard and fast rule. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic

Response to your post on User talk:Nunh-huh.

Hi guys. OK - so we disagree. Perhaps we can work it, or at least move beyond the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality of this discussion.

I want to better understand what we disagree about. Here's my points, feel free to state your objection to each one.

1. Homeopaths created the term "allopath" and "allopathic" to slam their opponents.
2. "Allopathic" is a term used by many today, in a non-pejorative manner. Including US gov, AMA, AMSA, etc.
3. There are objections to this usage. There are claims that it is an incorrect usage.
4. Conventional medicine, known by some as "allopathic medicine", has a history of its own that includes slamming its opponents.
5. The allopathic and osteopathic branches of medicine (the big two of US conventional med) have a history of hostility towards one another.
6. Over time the once stark differences between these branches have blended.
7. Differences remain.
8. Very recently and with lots of politicking, important U. S. medical organization have taken a "separate, but equal" stance on the issue.

OK - so that's where I'm at. What part of this do you not agree with. It seems like maybe we agree on 1-4, and then we have some major rift around 5 and beyond. At what point am I losing you? Osteopathic!Freak 19:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you're using the term "allopath" in ways it's just not used in common parlance. You keep making highly contentious changes. I will be calling for an RfC. Antelan 23:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Between us

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your message. The WP:AGF is a good one, and I think we've all done a bit of that in recent weeks. For my part, I'll be the first one to admit that I do have a POV that is non-neutral. I'm learning what it means to neutralize it, and you are helping me do that.

Obviously, I'm an osteopathic medical student. I have my angle to push. But I really want to tell you that I'm not into propaganda, osteo or allo. And I do see that there's a lot of it out there. I want to report verifiable, well-sourced facts.

I sincerely don't know how to best handle the Allopathic question. Clearly, it is odd to refer to anything as allopathic medicine, and yet at the same time, it is definitely used, it definitely means something - something different than what Hahnemann was referring to in the 1830's.

For those of us within the osteopathic community, we likewise wonder what osteopathic means these days. Does it mean 'second-rate' as certain statistics might suggest? Does it mean 'M.D. + OMM'? There's no consensus on this issue even within the community. Yet the numbers say, most of us D.O.s work right next to M.D.s everyday, in the same hospitals, in the same departments, prescribing the same treatments for the same diseases.

My point is and has always been, the information needs to be presented, not denied or deleted, but not slanted towards unverifiable claims. Right now, the articles allopathic medicine, comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine and History of the relationship of allopathic and osteopathic medicine are all a complete mess. But none of that information was even on WP just a few weeks ago. It needs to be better organized and better written, but it needs to be there. That's why I've written this articles, to demonstrate, this is a valid topic, an interesting topic, and one that really is a big part of the History of medicine, allopathic and osteopathic in the US. OsteopathicFreak 00:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your kind words. We've both got our Userboxes up (you're osteo, I'm allo), which I like because it puts our biases out there for everyone to see. I'll keep pointing out neutrality issues when I see them, but I'll also get more involved in directly editing, so I'm counting on you to let me know when my edits aren't neutral, too. Also, out here at Hopkins there's a big osteopathic presence in the summer programs and in the physical medicine department - it never crossed my mind that the old osteo/allo rivalries were still in play. Antelan 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, Thanks for the barnstar which you awarded to me last month. I appreciate it very much, but did not notice it until this evening when I was doing some fine tuning on my user page. Thanks for the kind thought. --Kevin Murray 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine

I've reverted. Feel free to do it next time. If it continues I will protect. DGG (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal barnstar

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		This Barnstar is hereby awarded for your assistance in bringing the parapsychology article to Good Article status. Nealparr 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good is great! --Nealparr 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Medical School

You ask how many sources you have to quote to prove that they are not equivalent, and make the point that you would get sued for practicing OMM. This is dubious. I don't believe there's a case of an MD getting sued for practicing OMM. However, there are numerous cases of MDs who get trained in OMM and incorporate it into their practice. OsteopathicFreak 12:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Conveniently, you throw that caveat in there: "... MDs who get trained in OMM and incorporate it into their practice". Clearly, if you get trained in it, you can add it to your repertoire. Back to the point, though: osteopathic organizations have sued, for example, the New York State Board of Education, demanding the right to use the title "MD", and they have lost based on the rationale that "the state demonstrated a rational interest in maintaining the distinction between physicians whose education included substantial training in the manipulative theories and practices of osteopathy and those whose medical educations have not included such training." Likewise, in California, Maryland, and New Jersey, at a minimum, the degrees are not precisely equivalent due to this distinction, which hinges on OMM, as I correctly specified before. Cheers, Antelan 20:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I conflated two separate points. Point number one, "I think its dubious that an MD (trained or not) would get sued for practicing OMM. Point number two, MDs can and do get trained in OMM, that is to say, it is possible for an MD to have same training as a DO.

Am I projecting that this is sort of emotional here? Am I reading into your language? Can I do something so that this conversation is not adversarial? I feel like we are just quipping with each other and not even absorbing the intent of each others points.OsteopathicFreak 23:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that we see some aspects of this subject in such different ways that, many times, what seems painfully obvious and objective to one of us seems contentious to the other, and vice versa. When people disagree with what you (that's the impersonal 'you', not you specifically) consider obvious, it can seem like they're being willfully misleading, which can evoke a strong response. Frankly, I think that's reasonable, so long as it's rare. With regards to your points, I certainly agree with the second one as I've noted above. However, I think that a malpractice lawyer would have a field day if, say, an MD without OMM training caused a vertebral artery dissection while doing routine cervical manipulation. Practicing in an established field in which you have no training could easily be held to be malpractice. This is a long discussion about a comment I made on the talk page, but what is probably more relevant is the government document from Maryland that I cited above. Antelan 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

an MD without OMM training caused a vertebral artery dissection while doing routine cervical manipulation. I imagine the lawyer would have a field day with any DO who did this as well. My issue with this is that your are building your argument for some meaningful difference based on speculation of a hypothetical and, in my opinion, highly unlikely scenario. I agree with you, they are not equal. My point is that in the context of a brief introductory statement in an article about medical education in the US, the word equivalent is perfectly reasonable. Your arguments establish that the two degrees are not equal, I maintain however that they are equivalent. OsteopathicFreak 03:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, the hypothetical was something that I threw out on a talk page; the document from the state of Maryland better makes my point. Antelan 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

EVP rewrite

I want your input on whether or not you'd be willing to participate in a rewrite of the EVP article. It would work in the same way as the Parapsychology article in that I do the rewrite and make the needed changes and then invite everyone to the talk page of the article to provide input and make proposed changes. Wikidudeman 00:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your resilience in the face of absurdity is impressive. I'll stick things out with parapsychology, but the pro-paranormalists are indefatigable in finding new ways to WP:OWN articles, as evidenced by EVP. The ArbCom has only emboldened their efforts and reinforced their fallacious ideas of neutrality and veracity; consequently, I'm not able to stomach any more on that article, but I wish you well if you decide it's worth pursuing. Antelan 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If I rewrote the article, Would you be willing to make proposals for improvements once it's re-written on a draft page? Wikidudeman 00:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly contribute my thoughts when solicited. Thanks, and best of luck. Antelan 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it too bad ArbCom is so misguided? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This type of baiting is exactly the type of thing that I'm not willing to deal with, Martin. Antelan 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it baiting? You said "the pro-paranormalists are indefatigable in finding new ways to WP:OWN articles, as evidenced by EVP. The ArbCom has only emboldened their efforts and reinforced their fallacious ideas of neutrality and veracity;" I know you consider me among the "pro-paranormalists," so you just said I OWN articles, have fallacious ideas of neutrality, and that I in some way lack veracity. All I said, was that it's too bad -for you- that ArbCom thinks the way I do, not the way you do. Try not calling people liars- unless you have a specific reason, in which case it can be dealt with civilly. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's an explanation through a parallel: when someone says that the Americans invaded Iraq, they don't mean that you personally invaded Iraq. And your "liar" bit - I never called you a liar, and that sentiment is not even in line with the spirit of my comments. You're having a strong reaction to something that I never said, which is, frankly, a bit confusing. Not as confusing as your insistence that the "ArbCom has confirmed" that you were attempting to "NPOV" articles , but still confusing. Antelan 04:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...Wikidudeman 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudemans RFA withdrawn

Hey, I've decided to regretfully withdrawal my RFA. Based on the numbers I don't believe it would have ever been successful. It seemed to have gotten off to a bad start and then went down hill from there. It's very unfortunate that it turned out the way it did however I do appreciate your participation. Thanks. Wikidudeman 00:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration on Vitamin C megadosage

Thanks for your comments. I would appreciate collaboration on the page to bring the citations up to standard. Would you be willing to lend a hand? Djma12 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. This is an article that is controversial enough that we should check the sources out to ensure that they corroborate the statements made in Misplaced Pages. I'll start a tally on the talk page so we don't duplicate our efforts. Antelan 14:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here

Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.

Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators are not gods

However, here is what the Arbitrator actually said:

I don't follow your logic that we are limited to the three choices you outline. I believe that the decision is clear as it stands regarding the use of the term. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter. I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Merriam-Webster 3rd New International Dictionary (1993), which I consider to be highly authoritative and perhaps more attuned to current usage than the OED, offers this relevant definition: "2 psychic n -s : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces." I believe that this concurs with the Misplaced Pages usage. The OED definition you cite appears to correspond to the "1 psychic" definition in M-W, which is a usage more philosophical than paranormal. I do not have an OED at hand to review any other definitions it may offer, though I am confident that the OED has many others beyond the one you identify. I would conclude that the Misplaced Pages usage is not unique or unsupported. Finally, since the Misplaced Pages article clarifies our intended usage, I believe that readers both casual and astute will understand that the use of the term does not imply the presence of actual psychic abilities confirmed by the scientific method. In conclusion, the decision is sound as it stands. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)" Antelan 07:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a disruptive POV editor won't get you what you want. It's this kind of behavior the ArbCom was supposed to stop. It will stop. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are hefty allegations. I've quoted to you the relevant statement by the arbitrators. If you believe that my edits, based on the Arbitrators' clarifications, are truly disruptive POV editing, I encourage you to bring an RfC so I can be corrected by impartial individuals. Antelan 07:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

dropping by, I've said elsewhere that I think psychic a neutral term. It describes someone claiming to have paranormal powers, without stating the validity or honesty of the claim. For a believer, it represents positively exactly what they claim to do. For a skeptic, on the other hand, it's as negative as possible: it will always be self delusion or deliberate deceit. I agree with Antelan--and ArbCom. "Alleged psychic" is meaningless to me--the adjective is implicit in the noun. DGG (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hand Hygiene

This article was revised to conform to Misplaced Pages format before your tags were placed on the article. It is not written like a "magazine" and the references are excellent and supportable. I do not agree with your assessment and as author I am removing you tags. Please do not retag the article until you justify any future tags on the Hand Hygiene talk page first. Thank you for your cooperation.--JSHibbard 19:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding on your talk page. Antelan 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot 08:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look?

We are trying to find a source for this list: Talk:List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members#RfC_Summary. Could you take a look and see if you can help? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. I'm not at Yale anymore (was there for undergrad but am now at Hopkins for med school) so I won't be able to rummage through Dean Salovey's house to steal some old records anytime soon. However, I've posted on the talk page regarding recent, living members. Let me know if there's more I can do. Cheers, Antelan 16:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation checking.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For tireless citation checking in Vitamin C megadosage, I hereby present this barnstar. Djma12 22:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

You wrote, True, but the irony that you pointed out was pretty damn funny.

I stood corrected for my incivility, but was gratified that my sense of irony was appreciated by another Wikipedian. Sometimes it's hard not to scream about some of the stuff I correct. But, hey, that's why we edit, right? Preston McConkie 08:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. If everyone argued in humorous terms, Misplaced Pages would be an even more enjoyable place. Antelan 15:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

NYU in popular culture

This article was recently deleted and I am submitting it for deletion review. As I see you supported keeping Yale in popular culture - an article almost exactly the same as NYU in popular culture - please support me in restoring this page. As the creator of the page I plan on bringing it to the level of Misplaced Pages in culture should it be restored. Please comment on the process here: Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_14#NYU_in_popular_culture. Your support is appreciated. Thanks. -- Noetic Sage 23:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article, so I tried to support you in as neutral and legitimate way as possible given the circumstances. Antelan 00:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

speedy

see my talk page--interesting & instructive sequence of events. DGG (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hah, even more complicated than I had made it out to be :-) Antelan 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The future of the "Osteopathic medicine" articles

{{osteopathic medicine}} I saw you posts on WPMED and Requests for Feedback. A few points to consider:

1. I too share your value that these articles should contain zero fluff, nor do I want the tone to be that of an advertisement.
2. I can now see how the content of these articles may be effectively consolidated into 2, or perhaps even one article. I do not think the time for that is now, but I see how it may be possible, with some skillful editing, to merge some content at some point in the future.
3. I cannot express in strong enough words how much I appreciate your feedback and continuing interest in these articles. I feel the articles are better because of your careful attention; knowing your eyes are tending to these words has pushed me towards a higher standard of objectivity and verifiability. I am very grateful for your assistance.
4. I ask for your continued assistance and also your patience, as I try to continue to expand the breadth of content in these articles, with the exclusive goal of providing meaningful, accurate, unbiased and noteworthy content to the readers.

• Doctor of Osteopathic medicine (see new Principles section, attempting unbiased POV)
• Comparison of osteopathic and allopathic medicine
• History of the relationship of allopathic and osteopathic medicine

OsteopathicFreak 19:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(note: the template for osteopathic medicine no longer categorizes the articles in which it appears, as per your suggestion.)

I've responded here. Antelan 22:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied here. OsteopathicFreak 23:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

As someone currently earning an M.D. degree, you have a conflict of interest in editing an article about that degree.

Self-policing of any group is also a conflict of interest. If any organization, such as a corporation or government bureaucracy, is asked to eliminate unethical behavior within their own group, it may be in their interest in the short run to eliminate the appearance of unethical behavior, rather than the behavior itself, by keeping any ethical breaches hidden, instead of exposing and correcting them.

And also:

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Attribution — when editing in that area.

I think it is possible for you to be neutral in this discussion despite your close connection with the topic, but I also think you are greatly exaggerating the veracity of the claim that "allopathic" is a pejorative: in the year 2007, in the United States. We have had reasonable and respectfully toned conversations about our mutual biases before. I would like to have a similarly toned conversation again.OsteopathicFreak 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one changing the articles on medicine. You are a member of a minority group within medicine, making changes to the articles on medicine and using your favored qualifier, "allopathic". I was under the impression that you were aware that your editing previously had been tendentious. Apparently I was misinformed. Antelan 22:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I don't have a major problem with keeping the pejorative reference. But I'd like it too be better sourced. OsteopathicFreak 23:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine . . . pejorative?

Your source says nothing about this being a pejorative term. In fact, it makes it pretty clear that its not. http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?CdrID=454742 OsteopathicFreak 00:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Find a diff where I said that source noted the pejorative usage of "allopathic" and I will paypal you $10. Antelan 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You've repeatedly, vociferously insisted that the term is controversial, contentious and pejorative when it is clearly not. You've refused to acknowledge that it is used frequently by reputable sources in a neutral sense, with no mention of osteopathic anything. Such a usage is seen in the source you cited on User talk:Adam Cuerden, http://www.cancer.gov/Templates/db_alpha.aspx?CdrID=454742OsteopathicFreak 00:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though you're responding not to what I said, but to what you think I've said. Antelan 01:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I was clarifying my first statement. I think you thought I was implying that you'd cited this reference as proof that the term is pejorative. I wasn't. I was responding to your claim that the term is pejorative, elsewhere. I was pointing out that you are now citing a source that refers to the non pejorative use of the term allopathic medicine. Does that make sense? Sorry for the confusion.OsteopathicFreak 01:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Name Change

Hi - I thought my name sends the wrong message. I wanted to let you know that I changed it. User:OsteopathicFreak is now Hopping 15:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fetus

Thanks for your message. I'll reply at the fetus talk page.Ferrylodge 21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ref:Citing sources

I was looking for something like that but specific to the Med Project, you know, that says "this article is within the scope of the ....." and says also (as the one you left for me) please improve your sources or so, even if there one with space for giving some pinpointing. Give a look in the ones at , something like that but for the Medicine Project(and join if you want to ) Thanks Jennylen 21:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about this one that I cobbled together by essentially stealing from Histref: {{Medref}} ? Antelan 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was thinking, great! Jenny 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Antelan 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Afterthought: Seriously, how you feel about joining the WP:TORIG, is new but with a very important purpose. When you are around helping with medical articles, you can also check for lack of history and origins references. If you feel for it you will be most welcome. if not feeling for it, no problem Jenny 22:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It sounds important and fun. Thanks! Antelan 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome! Great that you joined, Thanks Jenny 00:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes! It's great to see an other medical student in the stuff! Enjoy being a Wikipedian! :) If you have any kind of question, just drop me a line. And also if you're interested in maintaing the Portal:Medicnie, you'd be welcome! NCurse _work 09:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

G'day

G'day and welcome to the WP:TORIG hope you enjoy our tasks Daoken 19:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see what I can contribute. Great idea for a multidisciplinary project, by the way. Antelan 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

How is the situation at the Psychic surgery page, can you give me a short account of who is defending what there? I got lost really. Also in what point is now the whole thing and what you propose to complete that task and move on? Jenny 15:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ornis and I feel that some mention of the fraudulent nature of this practice should be made early - in the first sentence if possible, and at least within the first paragraph. At the very least, I feel that the practice should not be given more of an air of legitimacy here than it is given in our sources. I believe that this is in line with NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and the other guidelines.

Martinphi and Dreadstar feel that all fraud-related material belongs within its own paragraph after a description of what some psychic surgeons do.

Another issue is with regards to the description itself of psychic surgery. Our sources talk about it as sleight of hand, but the article's intro initially describes it in a sympathetic (in my opinion, not yet neutral) fashion.

Martinphi has argued for descriptions that do not make it clear whether or not what the psychic surgeon is doing is real or not. Since all available sources say that it is sleight of hand (or something equivalent), I am inclined to note this within the description of the procedure itself, whether or not fraud is mentioned within the first paragraph.

These are the issues at the moment as I see them; how to proceed is a good question. Antelan 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If the sources really do define it that way, consistently, then we could use that definition. I've looked at a lot of the sources used in the article, and they don't define it that way. That's the problem. –––Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 16:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Memory of water

You made a good point there. I requested better historical references Librarian2 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can find if the people who've been working on that article are not interested in the next few days. Also, apologies for dragging you into the Psychic Surgery article - it's a tough one, even though there is, I think, a willingness to work together and general agreement over the facts on the ground. I am confident, though that we'll make it into a respectable article. Antelan 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Procedural definitions

I very much think that you are right, but you are missing strategy, you need to get that approved in a way that allows future further editions, not in what you see as the "perfect" form, please bear with me. Lets achieve a neutral form, later, when the controversy section tips the balance in the direction of the more solid sources, changes in the main definition will follow with no margin to discussion. I am not meaning strategy from the point of view of entrapment but from the point of view of allowing neutral balance for securing a position which will allow you to demonstrate the validity of your arguments by their own weight. Librarian2 19:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I just think that the definition for this contentious article should not depart from the text. As far as I know, my version is the only one that can offer direct textual support for its wording. If you or another can work on a version that, likewise, has textual support, I will be more than happy to make suggestions. I am not going to spin my wheels, though, arguing over synthetic introductions that do not find support in an identifiable place in a reliable source. Antelan 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my point Librarian2 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I interpreted the crux of your point as Lets achieve a neutral form, later, when the controversy section tips the balance in the direction of the more solid sources, changes in the main definition will follow with no margin to discussion; if that is so, I must disagree on principle. ] states, Get the lead right first. Construct an introduction for the article as if it were a good encyclopedia page, even if it has not yet arrived at that point. The point of this page-locked cooling off period is for us to achieve good form now, not later. Antelan 19:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with L2 here, too. Find a neutral, agreeable form for the introduction. And remember, both of those paragraphs are in the lead section, which is what introduces the subject. And perhaps you are right, the subject should be initially framed from the very first sentence by its detractors, but I don't think you'll find much support for that. ArbCom pretty much ruled the same for Paranormal articles. Adequate framing applies here too. But I may be wrong, so feel free to check with Uninvited Co. or Fred Bauder on this issue - I think its sufficiently paranormal to check with them vis-à-vis the paranormal decision. In the end, I think this will fall under ArbCom Paranormal ruling 6.2; and besides, I don't think anyone mistakes this article for a medical article...it's obviously para-something...;) Dreadstar † 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone mistakes this article for a medical article...it's obviously para-something..." That is where you are dead wrong. This is a medically oriented article, even if it covers a fraudulent medical practice, and we have a duty to our readers. We have reliable sources that document how very sick people were duped and ultimately died. I'm not going to sit here and let you tell me that it's not medically related, sorry. Antelan 19:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't 'medically-related'. The prime driver here is "psychic", with a strong secondary for "surgery". I compare it less to Chemotherapy than I would to, say, Voodoo, for instance... Dreadstar † 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone mistakes this article for a medical article" "I never said it wasn't 'medically-related'" - Split hairs much? Antelan 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just splittin' logs, my friend...;) Dreadstar † 04:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions applies to more than just deletion discussions, and I think it applies to your proposal to consider "what article X says". Dreadstar † 19:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it not relevant to non-deletion-discussions, it's also from an essay - not a policy or a guideline. Antelan 19:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, the pinciple is the same. Compare with Policy/guideline instead of "article x". That's my suggestion. Dreadstar † 22:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

About We have reliable sources that document how very sick people were duped and ultimately died. yes you are correct but may appear someone challenging in full right with a quantum biology source of latest research showing people healed by own belief. Those are dangerous waters, the latest research may indicate that while the psychic surgery is a fraud, the spontaneous reversions of disorders could obey to the belief of the patient, someone with time and know-how can pop up dozens of respected latest researches on that field or placebo studies, you know that. One last time, gain a firm step not just loose it for wanting a leap. Lets firm up the article Librarian2 19:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Dreadstar † 20:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Psychosomatic illness

On other subject, would you help with that one ? Psychosomatic illness Librarian2 19:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy (Psychic surgery)

Would you like to give a look in the controversy section leading parragraph ? Librarian2 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I find no policy support for partitioning the lead into what now amounts to a "pro" and "con", and I find no textual support in the way that you and Dreadstar have chosen to word things. Clearly my views of how this article should be worded have become irrelevant, since I am mocked both when I cite sources and when I point to articles that work similarly to how I envision this one to work. I'm not exactly sure what you want me to say, although I appreciate that you're trying to keep me involved. Antelan 23:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Origins group

since you started the group I wonder what your view of the purpose of this group is --is it primarily to deal with the paranormal? I am not 100% happy with that, as there are already a number of such projects. In particular, I think WikiProject Paranormal has been doing excellent work, & I don't see the need to duplicate. If it's alternative medicine, I think the focus should be specifically declared. Of course I can & will say something on the project talk page, but I wondered what you had in mind. DGG (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi DGG - I'm not sure if this message is intended for me, since I didn't start the Origins group. (Update: Because someone rearranged the list alphabetically, I can see how you'd think that I started the group.) After the Paranormal ArbCom, I unwatched paranormal articles so as to avoid the battles that had consumed other editors, such as ScienceApologist. However, I took an interest in psychic healing because of its relevance to medicine; I don't consider it to be of particular paranormal relevance, but if WP:Paranormal thinks it's interesting, I've got no problem with that. With regards to alternative medicine, I only personally took interest in the articles after I discovered some overly bold editing occurring with some conventional medicine articles. Let me know if I'm not really getting at the questions you're asking. Antelan 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree certainly with the need for work on the "medical" articles. I had however hoped that the more general language would represent a more general approach. Pseudo science and its technologies are relatively easy to deal with as compared to pseudo-social science (a neologist of my own, I think)--there are some real challenges there. The pseudo history in WP is quite amazing. DGG (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably need guidance to be able to pick out the less obvious articles (outside of my field) with false/skewed/biased histories, although I can certainly recognize when an article altogether lacks a history of the origins of its subject. That said, I'm actively interested in learning how to go about this. Regarding medical articles: I'm also a WP:MED participant, which probably better explains my focus on med-related articles than my Origins membership would. I don't intend to push the Origins group towards a focus on medical articles by an means; I believe and hope that the current focus has more to do with the med-skewed membership than with any intentional bias within the group.

Reflecting upon your comments, perhaps I've been applying the Origins banner too liberally. There are some areas where I've used the Origins banner instead of the WP:Med banner in order to be unoffensive. For example, the water memory page might conceivably fall under WP:MED because of the medical claims associated with it. However, I felt it might come off as paternalistic or even offensive to some, so instead I went with Origins label (since the historical origin of the concept is not discussed in the article at all but would be informative).

As usual, this is a verbose reply from me. The gist: I'll try to work on Origins projects beyond just the med sphere, especially if I can get some guidance or examples of articles that have subtle pseudo-histories. Thanks, Antelan 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I created the WP:TRUEORIG and it is truly multidisciplinary, I will explain to DGG. You don't worry and keep the good work, you are doing just fine. Just be precise under which banner you work for avoiding those misunderstandings. Good job Daoken 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

H

Hi , I saw you categorized a task at WP:TORIG with H, how can I help ? Come to WP:TORIG talkpage so you can tell me more Daoken 18:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that H meant that we had asked for help from other editors on the page (which I had done). I'll remove the H for now since I don't think help from other TORIG members is needed on that article at this point (I haven't run out of my own resources for investigating its history yet). Antelan 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is mostly when you feel you need other TORIG editor with some expertise in a field you don't manage too good, but I will add a --C-- for when you have engaged cooperation from other editors (non TORIG) and --CP-- when you have engaged cooperation from other projects, thanks for the idea. By the way, how is going? Daoken 19:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I'm at the office, so I'm trying to keep my WP involvement to a minimum today. Just fyi, another editor stated that he preferred to have the banner at the bottom of the water memory page. Since it's not a question of accuracy or neutrality, I'm inclined to think that we should go along with his wishes on this one. Antelan 19:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right Daoken 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TORIG is now WP:TIMETRACE (also WP:TIMET)

WikiProject True Origins WP:TORIG is now WikiProject Timeline Tracer WP:TIMETRACE also WP:TIMET. This follows many opinions that teh previous name of the project could confuse or provide negative feelings in some users.

I read your name proposals after I made the changes, I am sorry because there was one I liked, I hope that this name serves well. Daoken 02:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PSurgery

Please check out the latest version for approval. Dreadstar † 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Loved your remarks

Antelan, I just checked into your page because of a short, humorous and much-appreciated remark you left on mine. I discovered that we must be kindred spirits; I, too, am shaking my head in wonder at the intrusion of ideology into science articles. I recently discovered the gut-wrenching description of the Technology portal, which reads more like a lecture from an anthropology textbook. I registered my objections in the talk page after discovering that there was no way to edit the portal introduction.

I know dealing with this stuff tiring, as you point out. But I hope to lend my spare time to steering Misplaced Pages back toward the encyclopedic mainstream. I also hope your strength is renewed during your Wikibreak, and that you return ready to work to re-establish sanity and logic. Preston McConkie 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy draft

Can you take another look at the Homeopathy draft? I think it's looking very good and I would appreciate some more input. It has drastically improved since its creation and any input would be great. Thanks. Wikidudeman 23:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TIMETRACE has been enhanced, give a look

WikiProject Timeline Tracer has been greatly enhanced with Guidelines and Strategy as well as many alternatives which will make your editions more easy to target, easier to tag or comment and much more. Please go to WP:TIMETRACE, give a look in the new tools and get busy helping articles. Remember that this WikiProject is helping the backbone (beyond content) of all articles , Reliable Sources and Verification. Thank you for participating Daoken 11:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation suspended

It seems that one of the parties took a Wikibreak. It is most unfortunate to not have received any communication in this regard. This mediation cannot continue without the parties therefore has been suspended. Daoken 11:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fringe Elements

Dear Antelan,

I understand your frustration in dealing with Fringe elements within Misplaced Pages -- I have had the same frustrations nearly since my first edit. I would, however, respectfully request that you reconsider your decision to avoid controversial topics. I find that many of my patients use Misplaced Pages as a source concerning cancer therapies and theories. As physicians and future physicians, I feel that we have an obligation to keep the public well and accurately informed.

Med school is a long a trying process, and should take precedent in your life. I have, however, enjoyed working with another honest and well-informed editor, and hope to continue this collaboration in the future.

Djma12 14:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Contact

Would you care to contact me and tell me what happened with the mediation you requested from me Daoken 11:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)?

Homeopathy rewrite

Hey Antelan, I plan to implement the homeopathy rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready and agreed upon. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace the Homeopathy article with it. If you see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Even if the suggestions might have already been made, just make a new post with the suggestions so that we can discuss them. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot 05:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your help in rewriting the homeopathy article. It is now implemented and hopefully will improve even further in the near future. Great job! Wikidudeman 14:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:ONCOLOGY

I am trying to gauge what the interest would be for a WP:ONCOLOGY category. This would be under the broader auspices of WP:MED, along the lines of WP:RENAL and WP:Rads. It would address standards of care and best practices in surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with maintaining and editing cancer related articles.

If this is something you are interested in, please sign underneath the relevant section at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Oncology

Regards, Djma12 02:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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. HermesBot 01:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your having worked hard to help me get Parapsychology to FA status. Congratulations. Wikidudeman 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery

Weekly Delivery