| Revision as of 00:46, 30 July 2008 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Misleading edit: still misleading edit according to Dematt← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:48, 30 July 2008 edit undoRandom user 39849958 (talk | contribs)19,517 edits time to archiveNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
| == Starting fresh == | == Starting fresh == | ||
| Time to archive. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> |
Time to archive. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Avestriel == | |||
| the first thing I wanted to do was create an article for a magician who lives in California named Jay Leslie. I've had the honor of meeting him in person thrice, and I own a VHS of one of his performances. I made a beginning already, and saved it so I could go back to it to edit, but it was instantly deleted as "blatant advertising" I don't understand how anyone famous has a wiki page if what I wrote was blatant advertising. It was all fact, with links. I even know his real name! (I haven't found out his birthday yet)I posted on the talk page of the person who deleted it, but now I'm worried that my anger at the immediate deletion of said page influenced my post and it was more negative than it should have been. Jay Leslie Deserves a[REDACTED] page, for goodness sakes he was on the Bozo the Clown Show. EVERYONE has heard of Bozo the Clown! This has been very frustrating for a first experience. I know more about John Hodgeman and Hobo Nickels than anyone, those were to be next. I've been involved in the filming of several movies this year. I felt that I perhaps had some things to contribute. --] (]) 20:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : The main thing you want to do when beginning a new article is establish the subject's notability. I greatly encourage you to read ] before starting another article. This policy is one of the cornerstones of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions or require any help, please feel free to drop me a line. In the future, however, please add your posts to the bottom of my page, rather than up here. In general, adding new post sections to the bottom of a talk page is how communications are made here at Misplaced Pages. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your Opinion Please?== | |||
| Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual people, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at http://en.wikipedia.org/University_of_metaphysical_sciences but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (] (]) 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing) | |||
| == Source B == | |||
| I haven't been following all of the discussion and am wondering what "" you are all referring to? -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 00:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Source B refers to any piece of research or review of research which makes conclusions about SMT in general but does not offer any insight into how these conclusions apply specifically to chiropractic. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ah ha! So it's a generic "Source B". That explains it. I thought you might be referring to some specific research with a title that was too long to continually mention. Now let me try to see if I understand this.... ''If a scientific study of SMT that studied SMT performed by 98% chiropractors, but also included 2% SMT performed by other professionals like MDs, DOs, or PTs, then that could not be applied in any manner to chiropractic.'' Is that your understanding? -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Actually we are dealing with studies which sometimes make no mention of chiropractic whatsoever. So there is no indication of whether the SMT these researchers are studying are performed by chiropractors or others. This kind of reminds me of the RAND study on the appropriateness of SMT, when a bunch of chiropractic organizations jumped on the positive results of the research ("Chiropractic works!") and then they got a lot of flack because the RAND studies were about SMT and not specifically about chiropractic. The lesson: General SMT studies are not specifically about chiropractic. I see this ongoing dispute regarding SYN as a similar situation. Some editors are using opinions from chiropractic researchers who say that it is okay for them to directly apply SMT research conclusions to chiropractic (Let's call that "Source A"). And the these same editors are finding other general SMT studies (Let's call those "Source B"). Then, the editors are justifying including such Source B research to draw conclusions about chiropractic in the article (Conclusion C) by using the justification given in Source A. It is a clearcut "A and B so therefore C" situation which by definition is a ] violation. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| There were also these reverts too, but since it was probably to a sock I don't know that it makes a difference. ] (]) 02:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Please == | |||
| Please disentangle from ScienceApologist as much as possible. It is widely perceived that you hounding or harassing him. Regardless of whether or not this perception is accurate, I strongly encourage you to tread carefully. To be fairly blunt, your intent quite simply does not matter. Well-intended or not, it is seen as an issue of concern and that needs to be addressed. ScienceApologist has plenty of eyes on his contributions. If something is missed, you can calmly and thoughtfully approach one of several administrators who are familiar with the situation. Thanks for understanding. ] (]) 13:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I understand. Thanks for the help and understanding that perception is far from reality here. Always appreciated, Vassyana! :-) -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for Your Welcome == | |||
| Thank you for welcoming to the page. I am afraid I came to this site because someone violated copyright.] (]) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : If you would like to specify the issue, I'd be glad to help out any way I can. But you may wish to follow the instructions for dealing with copyright violations at ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Well, after much whining by the poster "OrangeMarlin," he ceased trying to add it again: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Filll/Archive_3#Talk:Noah.27s_Ark Shame, I offered to give him permission, but that was not acceptable to him for some odd reason. | |||
| ] (]) 01:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)'''Doctor X''' | |||
| : Well, regardless how it happened, I am glad that things resolved and I encourage you to sign-up at Misplaced Pages and continue editing/commenting constructively. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Chiropractic confusion == | |||
| I am dropping a line because I am a bit confused about the dispute over mentioning SMT at the chiropractic article. I saw Xavex's suggestion and it seems to make sense. Why not treat the article like any other medical practice topic? For example, having a modest section about therapeutic exercise in an article about physical therapy is very unlikely to be controversial, because it is one of the principal modes of treatment. Similarly, I cannot imagine a section about prescription drugs or radiological diagnostics being a problem in an article about general practice medicine. What makes chiropractic distinct in this regard? Why would it be inappropriate to briefly provide an overview of its principal treatment method? So long as its a neutral summary of the subtopic, and treated a distinct subtopic, where would the problem lie? I'm just trying to understand the current disagreement on that count, as while the approach being used to include SMT information seems incorrect, the general point that it is an appropriate subtopic for the article seems valid. Thanks for you time and help in understanding this situation! ] (]) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm talking this out with Dematt, if you're interested in replying and/or joining the conversation there: ]. Cheers! ] (]) 03:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm glad to clear it up. I'll comment over at Dematt's page. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == {{user|Ratively usin}} == | |||
| Hi. Please take a look at edit. I tried to integrate that into the article, but I find it confusing, and am not sure if it belongs. I see this user has been previously reverted for doing this before, so I thought I'd show you this edit so it can be either fixed or reverted back. Thanks. ~<font color="blue">]]]</font><sup>(]]])</sup> 21:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm unclear about one thing. Is the Pokemon information true or is it just nonsense? My guess is that it is nonsense and based on this user's other contributions, I'd say he/she is just be a jokester/vandal. I would slap a vandalism warning on their page if he/she continues. If you get to a level 4 warning and the user continues, I would report the user to ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Shucks! == | |||
| You Good call. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Doin' what I can do to keep the stability of that article in tact. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Belladonna== | |||
| It doesn't cause blisters on contact. Has been used against backpain together with red pepper in Germany, topically. Toxicity of leaves overstated. Atropine has in fact a very wide therapeutic margin, and fatal poisonings are exceedingly rare. The symptoms are however extremely unpleasant and frightening. (Up to 30mg of Atropine are given with suspected nerve gas exposure, by auto-injector. The people are not really by themselves for the next 12 hours, but survive.) | |||
| Pralidoxime is an antidote against organophosphate poisoning, not against atropine. It restores the blocked acetylcholinesterase. | |||
| ] (]) 05:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Here a few more facts: Belladonna extract has been used as a heart medicine traditionally. A standardized Belladonna root full alkaloid extract has been used against Parkinsons disease traditionally in Germany. (Part of an older pharmacopeia, I believe still in DAB6, in use until the 80s). A combination of Codeine, Belladonna, Aconitum, Camphor was used in a cough syrup in the 70s in Germany. (not homeopathic, but in low doses.) The backpain patch ("ABC-Pflaster") I already mentioned. Today it only contains capsicum. Hope it helps to add valuable historical medical uses to the article. | |||
| ] (]) 06:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Twinkle again == | |||
| This is the code I see: | |||
| <nowiki> markRevertedPagesAsMinor : ,</nowiki> | |||
| What does that mean? Or maybe you're not the expert on it. Thanks for your help.] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : "markRevertedPagesAsMinor" is a parameter. The brackets represent the array - a field of variables. Meaning, whatever is in the brackets represents the kinds of Twinkle reversions which are associated with "markRevertedPagesAsMinor". 'agf' is an "Assume Good Faith" revert, 'norm' is a normal revert, etc. So just remove the variables from the array which you don't wish to have associated with "markRevertedPagesAsMinor". Be sure to remove the single-quotes and the comma (if applicable). Let me know if you have any troubles. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Done?== | |||
| So now you refuse to discuss the situation at all? --] (]) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Just e-mail him with the explanation, that's a good compromise, right? Both of you are being silly. ]] 04:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Levine2112: Deleting Ronz's comments from your talkpage is not a good way to de-escalate the situation, especially when you're referring to them as vandalism (which they are not). Better would be to simply ignore them. | |||
| :: Ronz: Levine2112 has the right to remove comments from his talkpage, please stop restoring them. If he has deleted a message, you can assume that he has read it, and does not choose to reply at this time. | |||
| :: --]]] 04:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the heads up. I will not restore such edits in the future. Instead I'll summarize as needed. --] (]) 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{user|Ronz}} has been banned from editing all Homeopathy-related articles and talkpages, for one week. This includes editing related user talkpages (including yours). You are still welcome to contact him directly at his talkpage about various matters, where he can respond at his own talkpage if he so chooses. But he is to avoid initiating any homeopathy-related communications for the next week. If he violates this ban, please let me or any other uninvolved administrator know. Thanks, --]]] 18:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposed deletion of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached.<!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry for the template. ] (]) 01:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: No skin off my nose. I just saw it as a fledgling article in need of some help. I disagree with your initial assessment though. I think she is a subject of enough ] to merit her own article. I believe she is a published author and runs a charity organization as well. I will see what I can find. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Embed== | |||
| If you put an embed of a video on your userpage, what will happen? And if something happens would it be permitted?--] (]) 01:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I have no idea. I guess you can try and if something bad happens, you could just take it down. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 02:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Astrology == | |||
| I see the subject interests you. I don't know if this is from an observers POV or as a practitioner, but in 1976 when I held a vigil at the Liberty Memorial Mall in Kansas City after the Republican National Convention (Ref: Kathleen Patterson, 'Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil', The Kansas City Times, 13 September, 1976, pg 3A and Robert W. Butler, 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction', The Kansas City Times, 2 November, 1976) I enjoyed frequent access to drop into the studio of a local night radio talk show. One time an astrologist by the name of Gars Austin was on the line from Texas giving brief chart readings based only on the birth date of callers. Coming up to a news break and not knowing me, from the studio I asked if he could do a more in depth reading based on my birth at 8am Sunday morning in Montreal May 21, 1944. The talk show host, the listeners and I were amazed with what he came back with. I asked if the charts showed anything significant around February 1, 1975 the date of my Spiritual resurrection. He didn't know anything about that. We were all surprised when he said, "According to my chart, on that date you had a very powerful Spiritual experience." From that time I had to give more credence to what is written in the stars. Peace ] (]) 13:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I am not really sure what you are getting at here. It does sound fascinating. I am not a practitioner of astrology or a believer. But I am always interested in reading or hearing about people's experiences. Thanks for this! -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 16:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Privacy issues == | |||
| Hi: I was wondering if you could elaborate on a recent post in which you used what you believe to be another editor's real-life last name. I won't cite the diff here; I was going to discuss this by email, but I think you have the email feature disabled. In any event, you're welcome to email me if you have questions as to what I'm talking about, but my understanding is that the editor in question has not divulged his real-life name, and regardless of whether your guess about it is correct, it's completely inappropriate to be using it here. If I'm missing something about the situation - which is certainly possible - then please let me know, preferably off-wiki. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I am completely baffled about what or who you are talking about. My email is definitely enabled so please feel free to contact me there (as this seems to be a potential "outing" situation). -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 16:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you mind double-checking your email preferences? When I click on "Email this user", I get the message saying you've not specified a valid email address. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Very strange. I've had people emailing me as recently as yesterday. Hmm. Well, I've gone into my prefs, clicked everything again, so give it a try one more time. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Works now. Not sure what the problem was. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Dr. Kolb spam on ] page == | |||
| Based on the IP addresses, this would appear quite likely to be Dr. Kolb herself, trying to insert an ad for her snake oil. It's a different IP each time, and starting to look like yet another case where it may ultimately require sprotecting the article to prevent this from happening every single day. ] (]) 07:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Maybe doing a limited "no IPs can edit" block on the article isn't a bad idea. However, if it just remains that it is this one cross-IP editor attempting to add non-referenced material, then the community can probably just deal with removing the references every time. If it gets to be too much of a hassle, perhaps we can notify an Admin at AN/I about the issue. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 17:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, they've made the same edit 10 times in the last 5 days, it doesn't look like they plan to stop any time soon. ] (]) 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Perhaps this is something to bring up with an Admin. Perhaps at ]. They may issue a block on the IP. Alternatively or concurrently you may wish to report the issue at ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Offensive images== | |||
| Could images be removed if they are offensive?--] (]) 22:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : That's a very good question. You may want to first consult ]. Then, if you want to take any further action, you may want to first describe why it is offensive to the poster of the image (or on the article talk space where the image is posted). See if you can reach any agreement on whether it is universally offensive or if it is just perhaps offensive to a certain point of view. Then, if all else fails and you are unsatisfied, maybe bring it up at ] and see what some of the Admins here think. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == "the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent." == | |||
| Your repeated use of the edit summary ''"the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent"'' is getting tiresome as it is only unapparent '''to you'''. You need to recognize that others find these things very apparent, and by denying them that experience, POV, and interpretation, you are not assuming good faith and are keeping out other POV than your own. That's not intellectually honest or mature. Maybe you need to back off and allow others to actually have some input here, instead of constantly shutting them out and dictating that certain ideas aren't allowed here as long as you are around. Be an inclusionist. We need all ideas to make this NPOV, not only one side. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Take some time and re-read this. I think you might not be ] in me. Try not to make this so personal. Remember, we are writing an encyclopedia of knowledge, not necessarily of personal opinion. I just started ] where I would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks, Fyslee. Blessings to you. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 05:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: All I can be sure of is your track record, which shows you consistently and constantly deleting and watering down the input of other's when it comes to the words "pseudoscience" and "quackery" in relation to pretty much everything altmed. Your edit history speaks for itself that you have a blind spot here that seems to be a form of denialism, at least of other's POV, and this results in deletionism, which doesn't build an NPOV coverage of subjects by including all POV, including those you don't like. We've been over this for years and I had hoped you'd be learning this by now, much like Dematt very quickly did, but I'm constantly disappointed by you. It's just sad. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 05:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Again, I urge you to take a step back and reconsider. Think about it. Why is it always the other side accusing you (in general, not ''you'' specifically) of POV pushing or of denialism or of deletionism. We all have POV, but what's important is that we try to put them in check at Misplaced Pages and edit from neutral perspective. Try not to make this so personal and you may not feel so disappointed and sad all the time. :-) Smile, brother! -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 05:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: BTW, your so-called "civility" rings just as hollow as QuackGurus, which is just as condescending and baiting. Please be honest and stop it. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 06:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I am truly baffled now. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 06:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Good catch! == | |||
| How did those words get in there in the first place? <span style="color:Purple; font-size:1.8em;">☺</span> ] (]) 01:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : An anonymous IP. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == thanks for your welcome == | |||
| Thanks for your welcome, Levine! | |||
| I'll be sure to follow your recommendations. | |||
| I'm a beginner at Wiki but, being somewhat familiar with HTML, I'm usually able to figure out the simple code after a few tries. | |||
| I've been using Wiki quite a lot in the past, so I've decided that it's time to begin to contribute... Usually, when I'm reading some Wiki page, and seeing some minor problems, I'm glad to correct some obvious errors, or expand the section with the material that I'm familiar with, or have found on the web (reliable webpages only). | |||
| All the best! | |||
| ] (]) 19:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : You are most welcome. Keep up the good work! -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Robert Young == | |||
| The diet he promotes is specifically mentioned in many references you said did not mention it. Critics are based on the diet because a big part of the article refers to that. The link between the diet he promotes and those references is direct. Also, the microscopy course he promotes is not validated and the reference deleted is important. Furthermore, it is informative to add the reasons of why is not scientifically sound, otherwise the critics do not contribute in any way. I think that if critics on the diet do not belong to that article, then similarly arguments in favor of the diet or explanations about it should be moved somewhere else. (] (]) 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| : Criticism of the alkaline diet in general are better suited for the ] article. Criticism of Young and his work is what is appropriate for ]. The same goes for microscopy. I agree with you that favorable arguments for the alkaline diet in general don't belong in the article. Further, I don't think an in depth discussion of the general diet belongs there either. If Young has his own specific twists to the diet, then those should be discussed at Young's article, and if criticism/praise of those twists exist, then those too can be included at Young's article. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Fare enough. Are you moving the deleted points/references to the alkaline diet article at some point? Also, I was wondering why the following was removed if it is said by himself, i.e., his webpage: "Dr. Young is not a medical or naturopathic doctor or practicing as such". (] (]) 20:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| ::: I hadn't planned on moving them, because I thought that the referenced material was already included or handled at that article. If I overlooked something, certainly feel free to make the move. I'm not sure why the self-quoted material was removed. Was there a reason given on the edit summary? Perhaps bring it over to Talk and let's get some community input. ] might have played a roll, I suspect. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| You mentioned that you're a "30-30-40" person. What's that? I'm curious and too lazy to sort through Google hits. :) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Oh. It's a diet where you balance your intake ratio of carbs to protein to fat. I think the ] was based on this principle. Essentially, for every 9 grams of carbs, you should have 7 grams of protein and roughly 3 grams of fat (depending on your activity level). Then, within that, it is about choosing the best sources of carbs (low-glycemic), protein, and fat. The theory goes that eating in this ratio keeps your insulin levels regulated, and thus promotes health. I did the research and it seems pretty sound. More than that, it works for me and I've been doing it so long that I don't even have to do all the math before I eat. It's not even a diet anymore; it's just the way I eat. Weight-loss is a side effect, but maintaining a good insulin balance is what the diet is truly about. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah. Well, I know people who've had good results with the Zone diet. It seems more likely to work out in the long term than a more drastic and labor-intensive approach like zero-carbs. I don't mean to be skeptical about diets offhand (apropos the Young thing) - after all, optimal nutrition is still a huge black box scientifically speaking - but there is an awful lot of BS out there. In my more cynical moments I've debated writing a fad-diet book (I have a "hook" which I came up with semi-seriously), emblazoning it with my credentials, and marketing the hell out of it. But I don't think I'm cut out for that sort of thing. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The Zone is all right, but I feel there are some shortcomings for me. I'm skeptical about all things and diets are no exception. But I liked what I read about 40-30-30 enough to try it and at the end of the day, it works for me. I don't think there is one end-all-be-all diet which works for everyone. Everyone is different. You have to find what works for you. For instance, the Zone suggests soy as a good source of protein (I think Dr. Sears even authored a Soy Zone program). I tried soy for about half a year and I was wondering why I had stomach aches all the time. Turns out it was the soy. Some people can digest it just fine, others cannot. Dairy is the same thing, but I've discovered the benefits of raw dairy recently. I tried drinking a glass of raw milk - half expecting it to cause me serious indigestion as would pasteurized milk - however, I can drink it down with no problem. I don't drink a lot of milk, but it is nice to know that when I want to, I can do it with little digestive consequence. Of course, you have to live on or near a farm or in a place where selling raw dairy is legal. Have you considered writing the Heath Bar Diet book? ;-) -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Patent pending... back off. :) Just be careful with the raw milk; ] is no joke, but of course you can even get it from Brussel sprouts these days. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Oh yeah, e.coli is the downside of raw dairy for sure! Spinach too. But that doesn't stop me from juicing it regularly. And spinach is an even better source of calcium that dairy. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == HELP! == | |||
| Dear Levine 2112, | |||
| Hi, I'm Dale. I need to ask you something: is my latest article, ], acceptable? | |||
| Also, I have attempted to provide reliable resources, but there is only little numbers, and no "Works Cited" list on the bottom. Can you help me correct this? | |||
| Thanks. | |||
| --] (]) 02:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Responding on your talk page. ] (]) 03:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Thank you for your reply. === | |||
| Thank you for your reply. It was greatly appreciated. I am working towards changing it to "The big Five." I will continue, in order to provide reasonable amount of information, to write brief''to medium'' sections. Thanks; I rarely get replies.--] (]) 18:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : No worries. Keep up the good work! -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Young Magicians' Club == | |||
| I've added several links to the article to verify its existence and notability.--] (]) 06:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Kismet | |||
| : Thanks for those. It may be a good idea for you to present your changes to the discussion ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 06:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == your comment == | |||
| Your comment does not belong at the top of the page. Please move it and sign it. ] 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : That's not my comment. That is a standard template which can be placed on PSCI related pages. For instance, see the top of ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Arbcom does not apply to this template. Please move your comment from the top and sign it or delete your comment. ] 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Don't be silly. Sure it applies. The template is used to appear on articles, therefore ] applies. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How does ] apply to a template. ] is about a cat. ] 23:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Please read ] closer. It doesn't say that it is only for ]. It is for ] as well. ] it is how we treat pseudoscientific topics at Misplaced Pages as a whole. The FAQ discusses categorization, characterization, writing an article, and labeling. For instance, as a direct quote: ''The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be '''characterized''' as pseudoscience''. I added the bold to convey to you that it doesn't say ''categorized'', but in fact it say ''characterized''. Look for language like this throughout the FAQ and I know it will become abundantly clear to you why keeping the language as a criteria for ] and as a reminder at the top of ] is a good idea. Again, this isn't my commentary whatsoever. It is the language that has been served down to us from the ArbCom ruling. If you wish to contest or overturn this, you will have to take it up with the Arbitration Committee. But my two-cents here is that it is a very good adjunct policy to ] and we should try our best to honor it. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Sanity check == | |||
| A ] whom you welcomed recently moved their talk page to a subpage labeled ''archive'' without overwriting the resulting redirect. If you get a chance, would you mind telling me if you think that edit to explain the issue and link to the archive was out of line? I do not think that the user's suggestions to ] made my tone too ], but I defer to your experience with newcomers and general 'clearly not in my cabal'-ness. - ] <small>(])</small> 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Never mind, all is well. - ] <small>(])</small> 16:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ah, no worries. Sorry I wasn't around to offer my help. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Misleading edit == | |||
| It is more than Keating. Your edit failed NPOV. ] 07:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I disagree. All sources lead back to Keating's opinion. Bring it to discussion and participate rather than ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 07:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Keating is not the only source being used. Please read my edit summary. ] 07:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here is more comments for you to read. Read the part about the Phillips 2005 ref too. It was more than just Keating. | |||
| ::Your edit does not accurately match the sources and thus failed NPOV. ] 03:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You seem to be ignoring my comments as well as Coppertwig's, Dematt's, DigitalC's, Gleng's, etc. Please take them into consideration. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your edit was misleading again. It has been explained on the talk page that is was more than Keating which you have ignored. ] 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dematt thinks your edit was still misleading. You may want to try to fix it and also join in the conversation. ] 00:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Now you are misrepresenting what Dematt said. Please take this up at the conversation ongoing at ]. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Dematt thinks your edit was misleading. Now please fix your NPOV violation. ] 00:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Dematt thought your version was even more misleading. There is discussion for alternative text. Please participate there. I consider this matter closed here. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Dematt considers your edit to still be misleading. I suggest you remove the attribution of Keating to fix the NPOV violation you made. ] 00:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. <!-- {{3rr}} --> You two already know you're doing this, but make sure you discuss on the talk page and that more drama doesn't ensue between you two, seems like every week you're about to tear each other to shreds. ] 00:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Thanks for the advice, Wizardman. I usually try to limit myself to 2RR, but perhaps 1RR or 0RR would have been a wiser course of action in this case. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==WP:AE request about you== | |||
| ]. ] (]) 00:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Please keep me posted and let me know how that works out for you. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == please reconsider == | |||
| You inserted comments between another editors comments. I think it was inapproriate. Please consider reverting your edit. ] 19:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : This wasn't a comment, but rather a question which we were supposedly all crafting together. We were waiting to form a consensus about the wording before we posted it. I feel the editor jumped the gun in posting it and my options were to remove the post entirely or to attempt to reword it to better reflect the situation at hand. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You edited another Wikipedian's question or comment. It seems inappropriate. Please revert. ] 19:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It might seem inappropriate to you, but not to me. As you well know, we were crafting that post together, collaboratively and I just wanted to make sure that my and other editors' input was reflected fairly. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I added my signature to the post for clarity. Hopefully that will clear up any issue you have with what I did. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You commented between another editor's post. The problem is that you think it is appropriate to comment between another editor's comment but you understand others may feel it was inappropriate. When others think it was inappropriate you may consider how others feel and not just what you think. It would be best for you post your comment after and not between another editors comment or revert. I can help revert your interleaving comments if you like. ] 19:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I understand how you feel. You may wish to discuss your feelings ] where they should receive more community input. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I noticed you question/comment seems a bit long at ]. I recommend you shorten it. If you don't mind I would like to edit your comment with of course your permission first. I would like to make it more concise. ] 00:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I would prefer you didn't. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 00:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:48, 30 July 2008
 Archives |
|---|
Starting fresh
Time to archive. -- Levine2112 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)