Jump to content

User talk:Neuraxis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Proposed deletion of Neuromusculoskeletal

Hello, DVMt, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

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

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

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

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

January 2013

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

Your recent edits

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

Chiropractic

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

Hi Ocaasi. I did make a bunch of smaller edits (5-6 I believe) to see what kind of editors I'm dealing with. Rather than taking down 1 edit and explaining themselves they just did a massive blanket revert. I sense that there may be something greater here at play but I will not jump to conclusions. But a definite pattern. TippyGoomba and Raeky are the type of editors who are primarily reverters, and are extremely vague about why they did it. They provide no specifics and present no alternatives so I'm negotiating with myself. I limit myself to 1RR a day, which is me exercising restraint when I know the game is rigged. I don't see any genuine attempts of dissenting involved editors with the exception of Alexbrn who use talk constructively and who present alternatives. Although we may agree to disagree, his style is honorable. I can tell when some editors are trying discredit me (as opposed to the content of edits) and trying to build up a case with admins in the future. I won't get uncivil and stoop to their level. But they should be aware that I won't be bullied here or anywhere. I agree that the article can be a mine field but perhaps your watchful eye can maybe separate some of the wheat from chaff... red herrings everywhere in that tak page. Thanks for your reply. DVMt (talk)
I wish I could get involved there, but I pace myself pretty carefully when it comes to conflict and this is an area where I can't really spare the energy at the moment. I would seek out other editors who you respect on both "sides" and build consensus among those who seem most willing to reason. I told Puhlaa anything that I know a while back and I would trust his guidance. You can also stop by the WikiProject Medicine talk page at WT:MED. You won't necessarily find eager chiropractic supporters, but you will find people who care deeply about properly representing the best evidence. Working with some of them helped me to evaluate my own views on medicine. If you haven't before, give WP:MEDRS a really close read, because regardless of what you think mainstream medicine/alternative medicine, that document is the community consensus for all medical claims. It still leaves discussion about neutrality, but narrows the debate considerably when it comes to which sources are acceptable. Last words of advice. When you can't agree on outcome, try to agree on principles. Starting at the bottom can help you build consensus without people feeling like you 'won' something that they had to 'lose'. Ocaasi t | c 05:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:PSMED

Thanks :) The credit for this goes to a lot of people, mostly in WikiProject Medicine who created the pages from which I more or less just wholesale copied (with attribution of course). Still, there's value in presentation and putting everything in one place, so I hope that others--especially newcomers--find it useful. Thanks again for your nice words. Ocaasi t | c 05:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Talkback

Hello, Neuraxis. You have new messages at Moosehadley's talk page.
Message added 08:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Moosehadley 08:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thinker

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

Don't be in any rush, but there are 5 pillars, a few core policies, tens of total policies (55 now, I think) and many more guidelines: You can see them all together at WP:P&G. A good place to start, at your leisure is with the plain and simple guide, and you can keep the manual of style handy for more education/browsing. Mostly you just learn by doing, talking to others, copying from people who seem to have a clue, reading up on policies/guidelins when you get a chance or have a need. It helps to learn how to search for them when you need them and consult them if you're unsure. You can search for a policy/guideline/information page by typing WP:NAMEOFTOPICHERE into the search bar, like WP:References or WP:Images or WP:NPOV (most of these have multiple shortcuts so you don't have to get the name exactly right). Also, drop by the Teahouse where you can ask new questions of experienced and friendly editors who are there just to be helpful and easy-to-understand. Or, keep checking in with me if you like, any time, really. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 02:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
These are a great resource, thank you for condensing them all into one clean space for me. I can't guarantee I'm going to become an expert WP policy wonk, but I will do what I can to inform myself. I appreciate your offer of assistance, and I'm sure I'm going to take you up on it at some point! DVMt (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite

I think it's great that you asked at WP:MED and no problem at all mentioning me. I'm making some notes about your rewrite and will try and get them to you this week, depending on how some other projects are going. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 02:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Checking in

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

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

Your recent edits

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

February 2013

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

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

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


Chiropractic controversy and criticism

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

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

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

Edits to your comments

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

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

Spinal adjustment

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

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

Your recent edits

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

Very Important Notification

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

What is a codpiece? DVMt (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
"cod·piece, A pouch, esp. a conspicuous and decorative one, attached to a man's breeches or close-fitting hose to cover the genitals, worn in the 15th and 16th centuries." Looks like a vandal doing this to a bunch of user pages, he'll be dealt with probably, so ignore it. — raekyt 00:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
April Fools is still a few weeks away! Thanks for the heads up Raeky. DVMt (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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

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

Doctor of Chiropractic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Regulate, Rehabilitation, Naturalism and Mobilize
History of chiropractic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Regulate and Naturalism
Chiropractic treatment techniques (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mobilize
Philosophy of Chiropractic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rehabilitation

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

Merge history

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

I don't think they're circular, if anything we identified specifically outlier papers and mainstream papers on the topic of SM and LBP. I had proposed a text but it got lost n the discussion. I will find it and post it clearly at WP:MED Talk? DVMt (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I found it! "Scientific consensus is that manual and manipulative therapies are equivalent to other therapies such as exercise, standard medical or physiotherapy for mechanical musculoskeletal disorders such as low back pain.". Do you find this reasonable? DVMt (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that 'equivalent for back pain' is ok, but should probably qualify any other nmsk condition with a 'may be', as the evidence is not as strong as for back pain.Puhlaa (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so "Scientific consensus is that manual and manipulative therapies are equivalent to interventions such as standard medical care, exercise therapy or physiotherapy for LBP and may be effective for other neuromusculoskeletal issues such as ..." DVMt (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I am ok with that! It is consistent with the available sources.Puhlaa (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
For your rfc, I would stick to the back pain part of your proposal. We can discuss how to present 'other nmsk conditiions' after lbp has consensus.Puhlaa (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I will do it at the spinal manipulation page, as it is the most appropriate venue. DVMt (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Raeky please do not post at my talk page anymore. Personal attacks, lack of good faith, tendentious editing, etc. DVMt (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


ANI

Have posted concerns about your editing at ANI [1]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Please do not remove or refactor the comments of others on talk pages. This includes removing valid signatures added to your comments by others. The comments you are trying to remove are not personal attacks. Also, do not edit war major changes into articles against consensus. This is particularly egregious when you have such a malignant conflict of interest. If you continue to edit in this manner, you will be blocked from editing. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I was being accused of promoting pseudoscience, I was misrepresented as a chiropractor, etc. These are definitely accusations and hence personal attacks. DVMt (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didnt know I could remove comments I thought were personal attacks. It wont happen again. How can I get her to stop discussing me instead of sources? DVMt (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Personally, if I was involved in such a discussion, I would simply take your word for your profession and your POV without some offer of substance from the party making the statements. COI and promoting pseudoscience are factors to be considered in such circumstances, but if the statement alleging these facotrs cannot be supported then it is just pixels on a monitor; in my view, a demonstration of having little to offer of substance; no effect on the discussion at all. Tiderolls 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I wish you were around 2 hours ago! Lol. I guess it's a learning experience in the end. DVMt (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Neuraxis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Personal attacks at talk page

Decline reason:

I do not see personal attacks in the diffs you list. Tiderolls 00:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I asked the Raeky several times to stop posting personal attacks several times: [2] [3] [4] and again [5]. I had also asked the user to stop posting at my talk page here [6] and [7]. I was being harassed. WP clearly states any editor can remove personal attacks which I was doing. I was removing attacks against me and she kept re-inserting them even despite my requests that the personal attacks cease. DVMt (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Stating that I am promoting pseudoscience (false) and a chiropractor (false) is a personal attack. DVMt (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Your course of action would've been to show how the statements are false. I would agree that deliberately making statements that show an editor in a false light could possibly be construed as attacks, I would consider such false statements to be evidence of having no real argument. In my view, altering the comments was inappropriate. Tiderolls 00:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, 2 points: First, refractoring the comments was done because I genuinely thought they were personal attacks and I read at WP somewhere personal attacks could be removed. So I did it. I did not think me removing attacks against me would be considered edit warring, especially as I stated in the diffs I felt I was being attacked. Also, I took offensive stating I was promoting pseudoscience (burden is on her to prove it, no?) and misleading readers that I am a chiropractor (I am not, a veterinarian) as stated on my talk page. Thanks for responding though! DVMt (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why you insist on using the she pronoun, I'm male. Chiropractic is considered pseudoscience by the general medical establishment, as the page for it says, and is included under the pseudoscience general sanctions. Your user page says your "certification in animal chiropractic" so if it's a miss-characterization to state you don't practice chiropractic then I'm confused. You even stated you incorporate chiropractic practices within your veterinary practice. Labeling you a WP:SPA is fairly obvious, other editors have also stated that you are. 90+% maybe even 99% of all your article space edits are chiropractic related. Based on your statement on your user page about being certified for animal chiropractic I stated you probably have a WP:COI, specifically since much of your edits seem to be white-washing chiropractic articles to be less critical of it's practices. — raekyt 00:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Raeky, I thought you were a female. I am aware of COI which is why I stated I took a course in manipulative therapy. But that would mean that any medical editor could not edit any topic of medicine because of the apparent COI. It' being misused, IMO here. I declared on my page as well that I am interested in manipulative therapy, so naturally I edit topics about them. There's a major difference between being a vet who incorporates manipulative techniques and being a chiropractor who practices on animals. There does seem to be an issues with WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE with article related to manipulative therapies across WP. Perhaps dialogue could be strengthened by what exactly you find pseudoscientific about manipulative therapy? DVMt (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I stated that my perceived view of your edit history is to "promote Chiropractic as not pseudoscience but mainstream medicine" by white-washing critical review of it's practices. I'm certainly not the first editor that has stated your edits are classified as such, MANY editors have whole cloth reverted your huge changes to chiropractic articles and you edit war and fight over them over and over, what is classified as WP:TE. You label editors as incompetent ([8], [9], [10]) and suggest only people who are knowledgeable about chiropractic be allowed to edit those articles. Your continued mantra about these articles being not neutral, despite many editors stating to the contrary, seems to imply what I've stated. Your whole choice of using Spinal manipulation instead of Chiropractic, where the idea of a RFC was brought up is more evidence. That you went to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine to try to start some pseudo-rfc was again an attempt to skew the conversation, again bringing up WP:COMPETENCE. — raekyt 01:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Raeky you are again mischaracterizing my edits again and not assuming good faith again. Now you say the RfC on spinal manipulation effectiveness for LBP should not be held at Spinal manipulation? And calling it a 'pseudo' RfC? You throw that term around quite loosely. Stop writing on my talk page. This is the 4th request I've made. I consider you to be harassing me at this point. Please stop. DVMt (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, DVMt, you did make inquiries of Raeky. It's within your prerogative to request that users refrain from posting to this talk page, but it can't be counted as harassment if you are engaging them here. Tiderolls 01:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That was until he did not assume good faith and started attacking me (again). I had asked him not to post on my talk page earlier today [11] but he keeps on coming back. I tried to be civil above, but I'm tired of his accusations and attacks. DVMt (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Your response does not specifically address my statement. Harassment is not defined as posts you do not like. Please re-read the policy that you have linked to in several posts on this page. Again, I am not contesting that you have some control over who posts here but some of the resposibility on the maintenance of this page falls on you. Tiderolls 01:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I looked WP:HA and it states "... if the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.". I genuinely feel that Raeky is attempting to intimidate me by wrongly stating that I am pushing a pro-pseudoscientific agenda and stating I was a chiropractor when my user page clearly stated I wasn't. Interestingly enough, a fellow editor stated that I was trying to make articles "scientific" [12]. You could see why I would take Raeky's accusation as an attack on my integrity. DVMt (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You did not appear intimidated when you responded to Raeky's inquiries above. Do you see how responding dilutes your position? Simply ignore those posts that you feel do not contain substance; if there is need to respond, take the high road and remain on point. Tiderolls 02:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
This whole experience has been educational. Thanks for the advice, TR. You've been an exemplary admin and have gone beyond your line of duty. Sucks to be trolled, but I now know better than to stoop to those levels. You are right. 02:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment

DVMt, thanks for reconsidering your comments here. Regardless of whether deletion or strike-through is more appropriate (from this discussion), most editors here will appreciate that you reconsider your posts and ensure they remain specific to sources and text. In future, perhaps you can avoid additional difficulties by screening your posts using the 'preview' button, before you post it? Best regards Puhlaa (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Puhlaa. I agree the preview view could be used more often. In fact, I often think I'm previewing then I noticed it's saved and then I'm WTF!!! I'm learning still. Wikipedia is a cultural beast of its own and there's tons of politics. I am a real and genuine contributor and create articles and bring up-to-date sources including systematic reviews and basic sciences research of manipulative therapy. I'm surprised at the amount of resistance to include 100 additional sources (primary, secondary and tertiary) that were MEDRS compliant all the while I get accused of white-washing when its all those articles that get snubbed. Perhaps you have a comment on my concern? Cheers, DVMt (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

Please get consensus for your changes to migraine. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Responded on the talk page. DVMt (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad form

It is deemed to be bad form to attribute others edits to what you perceived to be their underlying motives. [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss at WP:MED. I have opened up a discussion. Thanks. DVMt (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
No, we discuss concerns about your behaviour on your talk page. It is off-topic on WTMED. Your accusation:
is a direct violation of our injunction to comment on content, not on the contributor. Please read the opening paragraph of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and consider whether you may wish to retract that comment. I understand that you think you are "doing the right thing", but to an outside observer, you may seem to be wholly engaged in the promotion of alternative medicine in quite a forceful manner. You will almost certainly find that the majority of your fellow editors will not share your views on these topics and if you wish to improve these articles, you are going to have to dispel these initial impressions. Are there any other areas of interest where you can edit without controversy and build your understanding of how Wikipedia works? I hope you will be able to accept this advice in the spirit in which it is intended. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I provided the diffs which supports my assertion that the evidence was purged. If promotion of CAM means finding recent systematic reviews and using Cochrane reviews that supports a given intervention, than we should re-evaluate what 'promotion' means. Informed is a better choice of words. Why is is controversial adding systematic reviews that pertains to CAM? Of course it may rile the skeptics, but I'm merely presenting the evidence. It seems to be that many editors are using me as a lightning rod as a scape-goat for presenting evidence that challenges their beliefs. DVMt (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
But what about your comment that I drew your attention to above? Do you understand how unacceptable it is? --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
To be honest RexxS this is the culture I've learned since editing here. There are regular attacks on me, personally, rather than the content. I've shaken it off and moved along as I have grown thick skin in my short time here. I did not think my comment was misleading. And, if that is regarded as an "attack" that was not my intent. But, if you suggest my messages are being lost are muddled then I will certainly reconsider it. So, you point is noted, thank you. Moving on, what about the remainder of my message? DVMt (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sciatica

You seem to have hit your 4th revert again at sciatic. Probably a good idea to self revert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

We must be counting wrong. How is it 4 reverts if I just undid his move of botox to mainstream from the CAM section? If it's that big of deal, let me know and I'll move it back. There a difference between reverting and editing. DVMt (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. You think botox is mainstream? DVMt (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Some advice

A few things to think about:

  1. Keep your discussion on content. Passing comment on your perception of the motives of others is rarely helpful, and accusing others of being biased is often considered a personal attack.
  2. Do not edit war, under any circumstances. You have been blocked for edit warring recently and should know better; I will not waste my time warning you in future.
  3. If you, or yourself and a group of other editors make changes to an article, and those changes are subsequently challenged by another editor, the onus is on you to establish a clear consensus on the talk page of that article before re-introducing any of the material.

It's obvious from your pattern of editing that you have an agenda to promote alternative medicine in general. Whilst that is no crime, it is neither surprising nor unfavourable that the wikipedia community views advocates with suspicion, and so you are going to have accept that there will be significant opposition to much of what you do here. The answer to such opposition is not always to plough on regardless; indeed, the right solution is often to accept that you cannot have it your way. If you continue to edit contrary to the advice given above, you may be blocked from editing. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 01:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything you stated above except in one key regard: I have no agenda of "promoting" CAM. I am "informing" readers of the current scientific evidence of CAM interventions. No one disputes any of the sources I bring. It's always on the comments on "my agenda" with than actually discussion the material. WP must differentiate between skepticism of CAM and outright purging of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews that shows effectiveness. One editor alone has already deleted 60+ systematic reviews that showed effectiveness of specific CAM interventions from specific medical diagnoses. Will you please address this concern of mine? Thanks for writing. DVMt (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
While we may not have disputed many of your sources we have had some concerns surround your interpretation of the conclusions of said source and what sources have been left out.
  • For example in this edit [14] you used a 2011 Cochrane review which concludes "High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain." to state "Manual and manipulative therapies may be effective for the treatment of low back pain" I and a number of others do not think that is an accurate paraphrasing.
  • Than for neck pain this ref [15] but why not the actual Cochrane review? which concluded "Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available"
  • Than for headaches you mention this review [16] but leave out this [17] one which concludes "Current evidence does not support the use of spinal manipulations for the treatment for migraine headaches."
A number of review where left out of the discussion of effectiveness including this 2012 Cochrane review [18] which concluded "SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval." and this 2012 review [19] "Collectively, these data fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain management"
You state I have removed sources and that is indeed correct. These changes did not have consensus and included the removal of other high quality sources. DVMt removed the conclusion of this systematic review [20] in this edit [21] attaching it to a statement it did not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
May I get a turn, please to present my side to Basalisk? I was labelled a white-washer by Doc James as I brought the Feb 11/2013 Chiropractic article for review. He labelled me a white-washer which has since tainted my time at WP. At no time since then, has any concern been given to the actual sources nor their language, but were reverted under the guise I was a CAM skeptic white-washer. This portrayal is inaccurate and it's really been bullied onto me. Ironically enough, it is Doc James who deleted all the evidence (120 citations) of any effectiveness of any CAM intervention. This includes mass deletion of basic sciences research. Also, the claim that I removed the conclusion is misleading the readers again, and there is the appropriate section here [22]. Thanks for listening. 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Note: Doc James, I ask that you please refrain from my talk page and I will do the same for yours. Thanks. DVMt (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Doc James is right. This is the problem with cherry picking sources. It's also the seemingly deceptive (but probably inadvertent) misuse of sources, and selective choosing. Bias does that to us. It's very human, but it's also the essence of cherry picking. It doesn't help. When other editors don't accept your edits, take note that you may not understand how things work here. This is unlike any other place on the internet and it has a complex culture and complicated rules. Rejection of your edits may have very different motivations than you could ever dream of, so your accusations come off as clumsy and obvious failures to AGF. Following the AGF policy avoids lots of pain and blocks. There is no rush here. Change comes slowly. If you really want your edits to "stick" and not be deleted, then you'll have to get other editors on your side and involve them in the formulation of new content. When that happens, you will be able to relax and not guard "your" addition, because others will also watch it and defend it from baseless attacks. Everyone is involved in the collaborative process and will help you. Constant pushing and arguing only alienates people. My first article here was summarily deleted, so I've been there and done that!Each specific article on homeopathy, spinal manipulation (not completely identical with chiropractic spinal adjustment), acupuncture, etc. is the place to go in depth and to present the best evidence according to MEDRS, and it's already been done. It will be hard to make radical changes there. It's just not possible to do that at the alternative medicine article. It's already quite large, but since it's a huge subject, we're allowing it to be large. If we ever do allow short coverage of each method in the AM article, it will have to be a short summation of the conclusions at the specific article. (Now PLEASE don't go starting wars on all of them! We're tired of putting out wildfires.) -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow! Yes, you have a "right" to deny access to your talk page within certain limits (it's not really yours), but this is evidence of an uncollaborative spirit and will no doubt be used as evidence of your battlefield attitude. Really, save such restrictions for obvious trolls who engage in real harassment, not those who disagree with you but who engage in real conversation and serious comment. AGF. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Brangifer, stop moving my comment around and let them be in the order in they appeared. You're breaking up my page. I cherry pick my sources no more than you, except I use systematic reviews from PubMed and you bring primary sources from websites and QuackWatch. Given your radical COI I'm surprised you defend them so much. Anyways, I would ask them you, as well, please refrain from my talk page. We can keep discussion at the respective talk pages or articles we're editing. I specifically addressed Basalisk. I'm waiting for his/her reply (and noted it at the talk page) DVMt (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, your adversarial spirit and ban are duly noted. I'll just clear up one misunderstanding/false accusation you keep using before I leave. That's only fair. You won't find me using primary sources, Quackwatch, simple websites, etc. for stuff that is covered by MEDRS. For that I use quality scientific sources. MEDRS covers biomedical and scientific claims, but it does NOT cover anything else. Other types of information have different sourcing rules. You need to learn to distinguish between different types of content and that they require different types of sources. We document the sum total of human knowledge here. That is the basic premise at Wikipedia. That's why it exists. We document facts, fiction, conspiracy theories, opinions, controversies, fringe ideas, etc.. They all require the use of RS, but of very different types, for very different purposes. If you wish to reply, you can do it on my talk page. You're not a troll. You're sincere and willing to discuss, and that's fine with me. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Brangifer there are 2 main points of disagreements between us. One, your COI at alt-med and as a skeptic with ties to QuackWatch worries me about impartiality. It's hard to ignore. I'm only saying this is because you didn't want to admit certain CAM interventions are effective for specific medical diagnoses then advocated that 20 systematic reviews of effectiveness should be chopped because they were "bloat". You did not stand by MEDRS there, and for me, that was a litmus test. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. But that's what it appears, so again the COI comes to play. Second, you believe that medical controversies does not need WP:MEDRS oversight, saying skeptical websites are the equivalent to academic peer reviewed literature at PubMed. DVMt (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you misunderstand...on all points. No COI, and no equivalency between types of sources. They are used for different purposes. I have already explained this, but you are not AGF, so by violating policy on that point, you misunderstand and act on those misunderstandings. You have been warned you're heading down the wrong staircase, but you persist, and I can assure you that at the bottom of your staircase, there are crocodiles. We're trying to help, but you refuse. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
We agree to disagree with respect to your COI. I have declared mine and you choose to wiki-lawyer yours. The link to QuackWatch is undeniable and the alt-med article is filled with soap-boxing to Stephen Barrett and using QuackWatch sources instead of PubMed sources. Anyways, if we're both committed to using the best sources and neutrally covering the material there won't be any problems. Do you want to do a reboot at Alt-Med and discuss the effectiveness section that incorporates the evidence presented. We'll go over it at TALK. DVMt (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
QuackWatch is a reliable source. Being skeptical isn't a conflict of interest, that's patently absurd. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I prefer to use peer-reviewed academic literature for criticisms instead of reaching down to a website. Regardless, being skeptical is not a COI in itself, but when editors have ties and have collaborated with Stephen Barrett, use "in universe" language about what Barrett is thinking, actively edits QW then, IMO, there is a definite COI. But, alas, I'm not keen to get into that debate again. Thanks for your comment. DVMt (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time editing alternative medicine articles and believe there is a lot of promise in the area: you're better off adopting a less combative style. If you don't portray yourself as the enemy, you're less likely to be treated as one. Take small steps and be careful. Also, regardless of whether a 2012 review concludes that acupuncture or chiropractic are highly effective, there are typically similarly credible reviews saying the exact opposite and cost-effectiveness will probably always be a question mark. These aren't areas I've spent much time in as I have little interest them (my interest is vitamins and herbs) but last I checked it was unsettled and it likely will remain so. II | (t - c) 06:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I support this message. You're investing too much time and energy here to end up with your efforts being dismissed or overlooked on account of snark or antagonism. Focus on content not the contributor (don't worry too much about COI, it's typically low on the pyramid; trust me, I've been there and it earned nothing but disrespect). Try to treat these editors like you would your colleagues; indeed, we are your colleagues--we're writing an encyclopedia together. Reasonable people can and do disagree. Use the process, the process being sources, balance, discussion, and time. Be as civil as you are bold: you'll last longer, be more successful, and have a better time. Ocaasi t | c 05:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I was being too invested and not viewing most as my colleagues, in part because I was being trolled. But now I have found a group of editors who, collectively, shown me the way to last here and I'm in for the long haul. It got off to a rough start, no doubt, but I'm putting that behind me and moving on with a new approach and a new understanding how the WP "works" (as much as anyone can!) Thanks for writing. DVMt (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to read Wikipedia:Non-free_content and related pages, and read up on the issues with using and uploading non-free images. Remember that you must be the original author of images you claim are your own. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I would like to delete an image I uploaded and save some drama, but I don't know how to remove an image I've uploaded. Is there a FAQ somewhere to read? DVMt (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
If you're the only person who has edited the image page, you could put a {{db-g7|rationale=your_reasons_here}} template on the page to request a speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #General for context). For an image though, it might be better to use a specific speedy file deletion template such as one of those in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #Files, but without knowing your reasons, I can't indicate which one would be appropriate to your request. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for helping RexxS. It's happening here [23]. Regards, DVMt (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions on Pseudoscience and Fringe Science

Just so you are aware. Topics related to pseudoscience/fringe science are covered by discretionary sanctions. You appear to be removing the mainstream point of view from the chiropractic article. Here is a standard notice: 

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks IRWolfie. We can continue this on the chiro talk page

Blocked for sockpuppetry

3rr

You have reverted Philosophy of Chiropractic three times in 24 hours. So that's a WP:3RR violation. Greg Bard (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This [24]. says it all, DVMt (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You've been blocked once for edit warring, and then again for socking to try to prevent edit warring... you really want to jump right back into it? Looking for that indefinite block next? — raekyt 04:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I asked you not to comment at my page Raeky. Keep it on the respective talk pages. As to avoid any confusion, please do not ever post at my talk page. Thanks, DVMt (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
You may not ban people from posting on your own talk page. See WP:NOBAN. If you are confused about what it means, you should take it to WP:ANB. I'd love to have more admins put their eyes on you. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Philosophy of Chiropractic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philosophy of Chiropractic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Chiropractic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. By now you know the 3RR. Please let's not go through this again. Zad68 04:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sockpuppetry (using IP address 99.235.143.175) and edit warring, as you did at Joint dysfunction and Doctor of Chiropractic. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for considering me. I do have other articles which are a priority at this point, but when they're improved, I'll definitely stop by and see what I can contribute. DVMt (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Thank you very much, depending on circumstances, I hope to hhelp more in NMSK related articles. DVMt (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

... and disruption, redux

Hey, when I wrote this I didn't realize you'd been around awhile, let alone so productive with medical articles. In that light, I hope you realize that I didn't mean to condescend at all, re MEDRS; I was just going off an initial impression from Talk:Acu. Looks like we do disagree on sourcing, but working through that will be easy and even fun compared to dealing with our disruptor du jour (du année? is that how to say it?). I noticed your exchange with Doc James at Talk:Chiro. IMO, you should forget about ever trying to persuade him that QG can do any wrong whatsoever. It's been been tried before, e.g. here and here, and every time he resolutely defaults to "what about an RfC/A" (like we're supposed to do that for every nitpicky objection? yeah right) rather than consider conduct issues. Don't worry about it; DJ's an outlier in this respect. It's just going to take time to line up evidence (should QG continue as he has), and at that point the people who have been encouraging him -- most of whom have, tellingly, never tried to work with him -- may change their minds. We should start saving diffs. Try not to get too frustrated along the way; I think QG enjoys that, and will use attempt to use others' annoyed comments as his own "evidence" (which he presents in a typically opaque way, so it won't mean much, but still). cheers --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 20:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

And back to collaboration, Puhlaa just showed me this: Evidence Map For Acupuncture. Just as good a source as Cochrane but different conclusions. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 11:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

MFD

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack, stay off my page, as I warned you once before. This isn't OR but a way to keep track of references. Nice try to censor again. DVMt (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration

Greetings! Referring to your suggestion at my Talk Page regarding the development of articles[25], you wrote: "... How about you take a look and give me some feedback and we can start to prioritize where we're going to begin...." How is the editing going? Also I was wondering, where might I take a look on your current version under work? :P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. Take a look at this link. This is a remodelled version of the article that is far superior in both tone, weight to MSK, actually informing readers what chiropractors do, think and practice as well as the research that underlies their distinct approach to health. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DVMt/sandbox DVMt (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi DVMt!


I have revised the old Chriopractic article, as well as you new version here in the sandbox. I must say, reading the old version was somewhat horrifying: it was just a mish-mash of one-liners with citations with little or no connection from one sentence to the next. However, I am extremly pleased with your edit here. Well, as a WP:OVEERLINK editor I do have a dozen of links to be remove on my list, but it does not affect the structure in question ;)
Anyway, my comments would be as follows:
+ A clear "red string" to follow

+ Great appearance

+ Logical division of statements (not a jigsaw puzzle like the previous one)

+ Introduces a lot better the main believes of the doctrine itself; criticism is always for the "Controversy\Criticism" section


Some remarks:
  • Sections: "History", Osteopathic medicine vs chiropractic medicine", and Philosophy contain pretty much the same text.

* Sections: "Treatment, and Manual and manipulative therapy contain pretty much the same text.
Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I agree we should avoid duplication and I'll attempt to merge the sections. I was going over some recent archives and see there is repeated concern about undue weight given to the fringe faction and less about the MSK side of things. I have seen some good commentary and suggestions by RexxS and Zad68 in the recent archives. We can use those as a guide how to navigate through these waters. If you know of other level headed editors who might be able to comment or discuss these issues it will be helpful so we can have other opinions as well. Understanding the factions of the profession is critical too, otherwise what the mainstream approach is and what is fringe. DVMt (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! And thanks for your comment at WP:ANI. I just noticed that your message at my Talk page is still unanswered (sorry for that)! Anyway, you asked if we should present the changes to be made first at some sort of WP noticeboard... Hmm, I've been kind of wobbling between the two options here, but I think you might be right. When the matter is discussed on a forum more public, the resolution achieved will be a more robust one. We just have to make sure that enough editors who have been involved in editing the article in the past will also find their way to that noticeboard (which I don't doubt at all). If we just rely on the discussions had on the article Talk page, sure those could be gone through more quickly but I don't think the resolution would be such an enduring one.Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and when you decide to publish your version, I already have my edits (hopefully improvements) ready for that (based on your sandbox version)! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI on alternative medicine articles

Hi DVMt! How are you? I hope you have time to look at these two boards: User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour and Sockpuppetry at article Traditional Chinese medicine. It seems that QuackGuru is now publicly accusing me of "following him from article to another", along with a punch of other accusations. In the first one he took me to WP:ANI, and in the second one he is making these accusations in front of an administrator, Jmh649 (weirdly enough, he just came out of the blue to Jmh649's Talk page even my post there had nothing to do with him). Anyway, I'd appreciate if you had the time to take a look! :) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! The issue is now at WP:AN3 due to QuackGuru's violation of WP:3RR on alt-med articles. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
There already seems to be the inference that QG is using reliable sources and we're not. I hope that the admins focus on the editing practices and the 3RR and not see him as some kind of martyr. DVMt (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing deletion tags

Do not remove deletion tags until the deletion discussion is finished. Doing this again will result in your account being blocked.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on tone left for Kww at his Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Call for secondary over primary source

Left a long explanatory comment for you, DVMt, at the talk page of the editor who recently deleted your primary source. If still engaged/interested, see that message, at his Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion here, because I am trying to retire Leprof. Will look here, and reply to you in the mean time. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I await your response and look forward to learning from you. DVMt (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR report closed

This is to inform you that an edit-warring noticeboard report in which you were involved has been closed. It is to further notify you that at the next sign of edit-warring on any pseudoscience related articles, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't part of any edit warring so this unprofessional and terse need not apply. No need to threaten anything at this point in time. Regards, DVMt (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It is impossible to review your edit history without noting your chronic edit-warring over chiropractic topics as well as the multiple times you have used sockpuppets in efforts to further your goals. Terseness is a good thing, as it gets the point across in a way that flowery language does not. If you edit war again over any pseudoscience related article, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely.—Kww(talk) 15:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You're missing a few steps, and we see things differently. A warning to QG for his chronic problems would be noted too, right? You are being consistent across the board, right? DVMt (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neuraxis/Archive_1&oldid=1138941747"