User talk:Hylas Chung

I am a Graduate of psychology, I am a member of Hong Kong Poly University debating society, and won the first prize for advocacy. M hobby is computing and game programming. I think I can add some useful knowledge to Wikipedia. Especially from eastern flavour and eastern philosophies. Hylas Chung 08:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Hylas. You may have noticed that HKers are not allowed to edit on the NLP article any more..except you apparently. I have a load of info on NLP that you can post. Your voice may be the only one to oppose NLP. What do you think? HongKongMasterofSci 07:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I think I should ask what the heck is happening! Hylas Chung 10:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HongKong, that is a gross overstatement. Those folks who belong to the skeptics club of the University of Hong Kong are the ones getting blocked because they are meatpuppets of each other. Not every citizen of Hong Kong is being blocked. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand now Woohookitty. We HKer Wikipedians are over 6000 now. I will go to the next Wiki convention in Easter 2007. It should be nice to meet others in the flesh. Hylas Chung 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you start editing NLP and someone requests a checkuser and you are a member of that club, you will probably be blocked. But at this point, I don't care one way or the other personally. I gave up on that article and the associated articles about a month ago. Just saying what will happen if you are from that club and you edit NLP. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I'm sorry you gave up Woohookitty. I see why you might. I am not a member of the skeptic society. I always said I am from Hong Kong. So you think I can edit now? Do you think I should wait longer? Hylas Chung 03:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong, China

Please be informed there's currently a non-binding straw poll on whether an article specifically focuses on the designation (in other words, terminology) should exist, at talk:Hong Kong. — Insta ntnood 17:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Instantnood. I do not like votes but this is reasonable. Hylas Chung 07:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser

Inconclusive CheckUser just means that either they don't have enough evidence to make a judgement or they have conflicting evidence or some other reason. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Woohookitty. I decided I will not edit the NLP article now. I will wait for other editors to come and edit there first. Hylas Chung 03:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo, etc.

Thanks for your opinion. There are many problems still to be resolved in these articles. However, it may well be that, once things have been "merged" the flaws will disappear and -- at least to a certain extent -- the material can be unmerged. However, it is also true that there are many serious problems arising from the fact that various authors (of journal articles, etc) are using terminology, etc. in a way that is not supported by the sources they cite.

For example, you will continuously find statements such as: "The placebo effect was first mentioned in 1955 by Henry K. Beecher, M.D.". Anyone who makes such a statement (a) has never read Beecher's paper (his paper is, in fact, an earnest plea for double-blind trials), (b) no knowledge of the usage of the expression "placebo effect" (which was only ever used in terms of saying smething like "we all know that, on many occasions, placebos bring considerable relief to patients" (and these references to "placebo effects" predate Beecher by maybe 10 years, and (c) totally ignore the fact that Beecher was speaking very correctly of "placebo responses", and never spoke of "placebo effects" (even his own, later, book on placebos does not contain a single mention of a "placebo effect"). Anyway, there are a lot of reasons why these sorts of things need to be dealt with all on the one page.

I'm not certain how much longer the task will take, and I'm sure that unravelling the mess caused by Hrobartson's weird paper (it is weird because he continuously changes the meaning of the term "placebo" to suit his purpose), but as things get nearer to the finish, maybe I can contact you again? Best to you. Lindsay658 07:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lindsay658. Yes I see there is more complexity than I thought also. I will have a good look through the literature again to sort out the facts. Hylas Chung 03:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]