Thanks for the welcome! Actually, I've been editing stuff on Wikipedia for years - long before logins were required (although I tried to remember to login before editing). Has my history disappeared? Thanks for the public policy tip, too. --Kegill (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, O (per last edit summary, thee of the Xena Warrior Princess school of WP displomacy presumably ;). Aside from the Lead, I haven't looked closely at your Economics of religion section edits, but there is plenty to be done there, your Cleanup Talk note is right on, and your section-at-a-time edits w Summaries make a lot of sense.
I believe that Talk:Economics of religion#Citation Overkill, esp. the last edit meets the point of your EoR edit, but, if not, I can elaborate there. On the rationale for the earlier format of the last Lead paragraph, I've used your format for Demographic economics, but the individual phrases are shorter there (mostly 1 or 2 words), making them easier for the reader to navigate. The orginal format at EoRis more like a Power Point list w the Notes providing dimensions & disparate examples. I'll post a Talk section on the rationale for the earlier format of the last Lead paragraph if you still find it troubling.
The Lead edit I originally posted might be regarded as a transitional form w the merger of 2 articles. I'll do a little bit more to try to improve on your efforts wout losing the advantages of the earlier edit. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Hi, I did expect someone to remove my Vimeo 'documentary link' because I knew it should not really be there. However, we, in a remote corner of north west Connacht in Ireland face similar problems to the Gulf of Mexico if our corrupt Irish government is allowed to get away with permitting Royal Dutch Shell to get into our home parish and lay the Corrib Gas Pipeline through it - its totally unsuitable - we had the most major landslide ever known in Ireland in 2003. Shell and the Irish Government think we are fools but just because we live in a far flung corner does not make us fools. Transocean, the company involved with Deepwater Horizon is waiting off our coastline too. The local people in North West Mayo have been fighting the giant corporation that Shell is, they have had innocent local people jailed to keep them out of their way, Shell's mercenary terrorist security have sunk fishermen's boats because they refused to stop fishing, they have beaten us up, they have bought the corrupt media, the government, Mayo County Council and all the greedy ignoramuses they can find, they have tried to criminalise an innocent community. We have no money to fight back. They have billions every 3 months. But, they started building their refinery here (on State land owned for forestry, purchased by the state for cents) in about the year 2000. Ten years later, they have beaten the tripe out of us. tortured us, jeered us, ignored us - but they're still not in. We have to fight back with alerting people worldwide to the horrendous human abuses and environmental degradation here in Glengad, Kilcommon, Erris, County Mayo. AND, I could not resist it when I noticed that the article on BP has over 11,500 page views a day. If a fraction of 1% of that see this documentary it gets our plight noticed by a world we cannot reach otherwise! We need to use every possible avenue that costs us nothing to try to save our skins! So, it was no error - and, of course, I have it on all local articles as well. Actually, a few months ago, there were practically no local articles - I had to make them as well over the last several months! So, now you know. Now, if you don't mind I'll have to remove your comment from my talk page as some of the Irish Wikipedian editors might be with our horrible and hideous government and I could be in trouble - again!! Comhar (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I'll have a look at those links you sent me when I get the time. As the date for submissions to govt, etc... is in two days to try to stop Shell (for the fourth time!) decimating our beautiful part of North Mayo, I'm rather busy at present. Yes, I've had to work hard to avoid being banned from Wikipedia - there were a couple of editors out to get me at the start - one I havn't heard from for a long time - the other goes onto all my articles and apparently he doesn't like my style of writing. If its not that, he labels all my comments with NPV (neutrality of view point I think) and even worse, as there is so little written about here, he keeps labelling my statements with a sarcastic "original research" which he seems to deem a lot less worthy than something he reads in some book. I have been known to tell him (I assume its a him) that he needs to get out more!! LOL! He doesn't seem to appreciate that he's getting the info straight from the horses mouth! Cheers. Thanks. Comhar (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (By the way, that's something else I got in trouble for - not signing my comments with four "tildes" (that's what they call them! I note you don't do it either! Comhar (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Complete screwup on my part during cleaning up spam for an author named "Shayne Lee". Accidentally went way back in article history. It's undone now.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When different reviews disagree I always go with the Cochrane conclusions in the end. I agree there are some paper that do disagree. Uptodate has a great discussion of the evidence here [1] email me your address if you do not have access. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is for you to follow the instructions given by LeadSongDog here, in order to start a discussion on the reliability of the references you are using at a better venue. I am nearly 100% sure that you do not have to counter a systematic review with another systematic review. But, since the article this is about is fairly important, I think it would be good to get a lot more outside opinions on the matter.
I have my own articles I want to work on and things I want to get done, so i'm afraid that I really don't want to get drawn into this and I think i've already gone too far. So i'm going to leave it up to you, since you're invested in the improvement of the article. Follow LeadSongDog's instructions and start a discussion at RSN and make sure you inform all of the appropriate Wikiprojects. I wish you luck. SilverserenC04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% sure that you cannot counter a systematic review with a primary study. That would be against MEDRS to reach down into primary studies or other low-quality studies. The proposal is also repetitive. There is a lot of repetitve text to drown out the reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are other possible sources besides "primary studies" that are not systematic reviews. It is not a one or the other scenario. But either way, I feel that outside opinions should be brought in to discuss the subject. SilverserenC04:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop with the pestering? If you have problems with his proposal, put it on the article talk page, stop bothering other people on their user talk pages. Besides, this section I created is not about the proposal, but about making a discussion to get in outside opinions on the references for the proposal. SilverserenC04:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, what you could do if you want and I give you my permission to do it if you like is take my three comments and move them to the bottom of the page and bunch them together leaving a single signature and then replace your bulleted point summaries of my comments, enjoy. I am off out. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was angry at how ridiculous he is being. There is no use arguing with them because they are going to continue saying the same thing over and over again, and we can never change their mind. Furthermore, they delete whatever they want. How do we get an admin involved? If we are truly wrong then I'll be happy to give it upJavsav (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ocaasi! I've noticed a fair few IP edits which I presume are by you (the IP signs as you). Assuming it is you, no worries (but do let me know if it wasn't you, obviously!), and have you considered creating an alternative account for editing when you're away from your main computer? It would save you having to remember to sign using the "nosign!" idiom. Anyway, just a thought, and no worries if you'd prefer not to. TFOWR11:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's pretty much sheer convenience (laziness?) Sometimes I'm not logged in and do a drive-by edit and get to the edit page, realize I'm not logged in and then can either just edit it, or have to log-in, reload the page, and clear the cache. So, sometimes I do it. It sounds like there are easy alternatives. Given that I'm pretty flagrant about it, is it a problem? Or 'discouraged'? Ocaasi14:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note at the top of the page linking to the i.p. Ocaasi 14:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
No, not at all - just thought an alternative account might help. I've no objection to you doing it: I've done it myself in the past. Carry on! TFOWR18:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi , as you seem quite interested in the issue and in statistics, if you have time I was thinking it would be a revealing thing to assess the comments so far in regards to likely final vote comment results, as in, look at all the comments so far and asses them as either support or oppose with the seemingly undecided and others as a neutral, this would give us some feedback as the general position that may reflect the final result, thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll do a quick count. Just support - oppose or strong oppose - oppose - support- strong support. Also, what do you think about the proposal on talk, about specific options? Ocaasi (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a quick count and got about 19 clear supports and 11 clear opposes, I ignore strong and weak mostly, if a user says he likes this but doesn't like that he is a pretty much a neutral and I didn't bother counting them. I would be interested to see what numbers you return. I will look at the new talk specifics now. Off2riorob (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think we are pretty much in the same ball park. If that is reflected and the issues addressed it looks like the feedback so far is a consensus to continue. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The specific options is interesting and would give very clear feedback, there are ten options to keep and only one to remove , perhaps that is correct. I also think there are issues that presently are unable to be addressed which rules out a couple of the options, I have been informed that a large expansion at this time is not statistically an option, which would rule out three or four of the options. Off2riorob (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you get a slightly more specific read about what is possible? Also, do you think it's better to a) keep the discussion/vote a very simple support-oppose the trial continuing b) focus the discussion/vote on a few of the most targeted features and desired changes/expansions c) have a wide-open discussion about all ~10 options Ocaasi (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found that you need to keep in simple or the whole issue gets lost in the discussion. I was told that it is a matter of users not being enough to watch a massive amount of pending protected pages. IMO any expansion should be better slowly so that we could watch the actioned times rising and we would naturally find the maximum number of possible articles...saying that I have found a degree of support for a roll out on all BLP articles as a trial, perhaps two months but as yet I haven't found the number of BLP articles we have, if you ask at the help desk someone will tell the place to get those figures. Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simple sounds good. What about narrowing it down to three simple packages:
1 - Close. 2 - Keep as is, work on improvements. 3 - Keep as is, work on improvements with expansion up to 10k low traffic/BLPs. Ocaasi (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is better.A lot more attainable. It may be a good format to offer as the questions to ask in the actual consensus vote comment.....
Please respond to the questions below with a single number.
1 - Close.
2 - Keep as is, work on improvements.
3 - Keep as is, work on improvements with expansion up to 10k low traffic/BLPs.
I like this. I realized that of the 10 options, these are just the first 3, combining low traffic and blp issues, and removing the expand/expand options, which didn't have a chance. So, this is the right list.
Should we try to summarize the most consistently desired improvements, i.e.: A review of the discussion revealed consistent support for making pending changes faster, fixing the accept/unaccept interface, clarifying policy regarding when to accept edits, and emphasizing use on lower-traffic pages and BLPs rather than as a substitute for semi-protection.
The most common criticisms addressed...
No I think simple is good, the comment work on improvements explains all that, as I like it so much and ideas are being posted I have posted it on the ttalk as a possible format for the vote comment upcoming, the format of the questions is of cource yours though. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my only issue with that. If you have three options, people will tend to pick the middle one, because either of the alternatives will seem more 'extreme'. In this case, that might be appropriate, because it may be extreme to just close the trial or to expand it, but I think if there's a better sense of just how much people agree on the issue that need improvement, it might allow people to consider the <10k expansion with less concern. Ocaasi (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the medium option you mean... I see your point, (that is not always a bad idea) as continued usage with slow and steady growth and understanding and improvement is quite the encyclopedic way. Although I do think there is a degree of support for expansion...I wonder of the 21 supports comments how many of them also appeared to support expansion option? head count?... Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the 21 supports were not total but net, as in 21 more supports than opposes. Of the total supports (about 45), they were pretty much 50/50 on enthusiasm, with a small majority disliking the feature as is but preferring it on low traffic/blp articles. So i think if you took a poll right now of 1, 2, and 3, it'd be 33%, 33%, 33%. The question I have is, should we try to get option 2 and 3 people to an actual consensus about what issues need attention and what aspects of an expansion would be desirable.
Also, we should maybe move this to Talk:pc, since Yaris has been involved and has some of his/her own ideas. Also also, Yaris deleted the old talk sections to focus on this new phase of the discussion; it's a good shift in focus, but a bit against talk page policy. Could you dig into a diff and archive what he did. I've never archived a talk page before. Ocaasi (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my read on the situation. Pending changes is worth exploring further. It has problems that absolutely need fixing. The current trial is not broad enough to answer several questions about the feature. If we continue the trial as is for 6 months, many of the kinks will get worked out, hopefully reviewer guidelines will become clear, etc. But there still won't be any sense of whether it can scale. Currently there's a horde of reviewers, 5000 for 2000 articles. There's not even a prayer of the queue backing up, which doesn't reveal much about the feature's actual worth. So, if there's a way to promote a minimal expansion, I think it's worth taking time to discuss. Ocaasi (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't want to expand it because I like it, but because the current configuration doesn't allow the trial to reveal enough information about it. Also, some of the issues about which pages should get PC might be resolved if there were a few more low traffic type pages in the mix. So... if you think the 10k option is unlikely, maybe it'd be worth just doing a simple close/continue (up to 5k), and try to shift PC use-guidelines towards sentiments expressed in the discussion.Ocaasi (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood, are they more likely to support an increase to 5 k.....I have no idea, there is time though over a week for you to focus on that and I agree that is worthy of discussion. I see your point. I have sorted the archive. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the archive. Yeah, what to do with the next week is the interesting question. The 1.2.3. poll really doesn't require any discussion. Not sure what would be the best option yet. Ocaasi (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is quite a problem, I have created a mediation cabal request to help us move on with the issue on the article: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-23/Chiropractic. I have not looked at this issue until recently, so I may be missing a few involved parties, could you ask them if I missed them. Please participate once the case has been accepted by a mediator. --Anon08:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your question. Note that pending changes is still active. It will be shut off in 1 month unless there is consensus to continue is listed at the beginning of the pc/closure page, and described in the introduction. Ocaasi (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The old one till I fixed it! Go look back at the history
Soembody had it all filled out incorrectly till Kelsey and Joanna final 2 with Joanna winning
The show has only aired 6 episodes so far and since I know the spoilers, this is the wrong call out order anyway!
talk11:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody knows the call out order for future episodes, only spoilers on who goes. The call out order that person posted was incorrect and vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.84.177 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I explained the reasoning, those two versions are the only ones really used, it bloats the article. Small grammatical mistakes do not warrant the revert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.26.129 (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you might be interested in this wonky analysis. I'll put it on the main talk page if you think it's useful, but that discussion is busy enough that I doubt it would help...
This is an interesting analysis, but as noted on the talk page, the result might be indicative of a different problem (that much of option 3's support has arisen from the mistaken impression that we're being asked to lock in a long-term implementation). —David Levy14:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: I cleaned up the numbers on your talk page. It's simpler now, but has the same point.
Also, you've just expressed the issue in a way that I hadn't heard before, and it makes much more sense: If this is the last vote forever on pending changes, then it makes sense to add a little more slack but not too much (option 4 is pretty premature no matter what you think of PC). So... you think that 3's are inflated because voters felt locked in. Do comments reflect that? (Could they?) I think the description of a 'gradual, limited expansion tempered the false enthusiasm of the 3 voters, since it basically described the alternative I assume you think is lacking, just in a non-specific way. I think an easy solution to this situation is just to count the vote as a win for keep, and then focus the majority of efforts on improving the actual interface and policy. Even if three 'wins' under possibly misinterpreted pretenses, it's still critical to make the system better. And once the system is improved, all of the current 3 votes indicate that there is enthusiasm for at least a small expansion. Can't we basically effect that in the implementation? Ocaasi (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FYI, I always assumed that this poll would only be binding for 6 months to a year at which point the feature would be re-evaluated based on the improvements and performance. Ocaasi (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was discovered by WFCforLife, who posted the following message:
If it were made clear that this is a short term decision, people would be more inclined to vote 2, on the grounds that when the developers sort the issues out we would look at it pretty quickly. The poll is completely ambiguous as to the timescale, and the result is lot of people voting for 3 while saying "I want to see this expanded, but there are still some serious issues right now that need to be fixed", in all probability because they think this is long term. Assuming we're not simply going for the most popular of the four options, this makes a big difference. I haven't bothered to count, but at a glance it would take the balance of the votes from a weak preference for expansion, to quite firmly saying "we want to expand, but not until some of the issues are mitigated or resolved by the developers." --WFC-- 03:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Until I read that, I was among those under the mistaken impression that we were being asked to determine the feature's long-term implementation.
Regarding your proposed outcome, TFOWR made a similar suggestion (stressing the importance of additional discussion), and I agree that this is the best course of action if the poll runs to completion. —David Levy15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I take your reading of TFOWR a bit further, though. I almost assume that once the majority of interface and policy changes happen, that the support for a minimal expansion is already there. That is a little presumptuous as to exactly which changes are 'the critical' ones, but having read through the entire pc/closure discussion and helped compile the working summary of issues and recommendations, I have a pretty good idea what bothered whom. I'm not too concerned about the outcome of this poll, as long as people don't feel shafted and pending changes keeps getting worked on. The only tradeoff I see is between minimally expanding before changes are ready --or-- not getting the added info from a slightly expanded trial. Neither is make or break in my mind. What about splitting the difference, authorizing up to 5k in an expansion, with the emphasis on fixing issues first, and a re-evaluation after 6months to 1 year? Ocaasi (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors had a hissy fit after being told to read GAMEGUIDE and then proceeded to state their departure from Wikipedia.
One of their edits stated "I am following my neighbour, Armakdaius Europe."
Which suspected me of sockpuppetry, but they left, for a short time very likely and I will not call an investigation of sockpuppetry of the editors.
Many Regards,
Yousou (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC).
One of the editors made a personal attack on me. They also stated my revert was vandalism.
They then stated their departure to me, stating I was not nice, even though I have not made any negative comments or personal attacks against them.
Many Regards,
Yousou (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC).
The personal attack in question was a name calling of 'retard'. I remember one essay stating that almost anyone can be reformed on Wikipedia. I can't find it now.
Many Regards,
Yousou (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Incase you're wondering about my edit to Sandy Frank about him being charged for an assult, here's the source. I would've put that in the page (I'm not gonna lie to ya, I really would have), but the thing is, putting the links under to "References" can be kind of complicated for me. Unless, that is, there's any kind of template page on here that can help me out with that? 24.181.236.186 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to disregard this if you don't want to 'debate' the feature.
I saw these arguments you made in a discussion and felt like responding to some of them.
Utterly useless against long-term abusers (such as Bambifan101) and spammers
Almost everything except checkusers and edit-filters are useless against them. Not sure how that's a mark against pending changes.
The problem is that unlike other methods of antivandal measures, PC can actually exacerbate the problem by allowing a vandal a chance to overload PC articles with several vandal edits right out of the gate. Semi-protection requires that they create a sleeper account first, delaying them and making it harder for them to IP-hop. —Jeremy(v^_^vPC/SP is a show-trial!)19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creates a psychologically-based distrust for IPs and new users in controversial areas
I'm pretty sure that IPs are already distrusted and have been for a long time, as evidenced by the perennial proposal to ban them (and require registration). On most semi-protected articles, IPs don't edit at all. Under a PC article, IP edits both good and bad come through, which people can evaluate on the merits.
You missed the key part there: in controversial areas. Controversial areas will tend to get more vandalism from IPs en generale which will need to be checked by reviewers, whom will eventually become jaded by the whole experience and start rejecting IP edits offhand as vandalism - whether they are or not. —Jeremy(v^_^vPC/SP is a show-trial!)19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has the potential to turn into a form of censorship
It could, but compared to articles controversial articles, which are typically 'owned' by those contesting the issues, PC just employs relatively random uninvolved reviewers. Controversial articles will be watched by plenty of people to keep an eye on censorship. And censorship happens already on those kinds of articles. I don't see how PC makes the situation worse. In fact, it opens up controversial articles to more editors, it seems.
Only for those editors to be disgusted by the already-existing cabal and leave or to join the calls of the reviewers on the article and opposing anything but the status quo. You're gonna have to do better than that, Ocassi, since this one and the one above are not technical issues, but psychological. —Jeremy(v^_^vPC/SP is a show-trial!)19:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reinforces a Citizendium-style hierarchy (whether that was the intent or not)
There are hierarchies of power and hierarchies of access. Reviewer status is the first kind, but PC can actually reduce the second, if used instead of semi or full protection.
Inadequate means to protect reviewers (or any user en generale) from off-site harassment, causing an even worse "Defender of the Holy Wiki" mentality
It seems that anyone who challenges vandalism is vulnerable to this kind of harassment. They already are and always have been. I don't see pending changes making that worse.
All together, I think the feature can be useful, needs a lot of work, and you obviously hate it a ton. I think some of the problems you mention have been that way long before PC. I can see why you don't want Wikipedia turning into citizendium; do you think it's possible that some/many supporters of PC don't want that either? Ocaasi (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guy (Marc Ward) is a professional gamer at Halo 3 and MW2. He is part of an MLG clan called phase 2, currently ranked #1 in London after we held local championships. #2 was primary suits. He gets paid to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.90.54 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please....dont reverse my edits just because I appeared as a spurious IP address having failed to notice I was logged out. Careful examination of my edit would have shown it was an appropriate editand was to an article on which I have contributed a lot, none of it junk !! Thank you Ocassi.
Aspdin (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made substantial changes against WEIGHT and without discussion to chiropractic page
Towards the top of the chiropractic talk page it says: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information."
After it was explained to you the references did not contradict the systematic review[2] you made substantial changes to the article without discussion against WP:WEIGHT.[3] You added a lot of single studies to argue against sysematic reviews against WP:MEDRS.[4]
You claimed you discussed the change before you made it. No, you did not discuss the change. You did not discuss making major changes on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I added were primarily not single studies. Please identify which sources you think are unsuitable. MEDRS identifies a hierarchy of sources, but even single studies are relevant provided they directly address the claim. I believe other editors support the addition of views which add context and opposition to Ernst. I believe that is already clear on the talk page. I believe that if I ask them to express their views specifically they will support the recent change, barring some editing. I will ask them.[5]
You claim even singe stuides are relevant. Wrong. you are cherry picking singe stuides to argue against reviews.
You wrote "I believe other editors support the addition of views which add context and opposition to Ernst. I believe that is already clear on the talk page."
No, you did not discuss your major changes first. So I don't see how any editor could of supported the massive changes. What is clear from the talk page is that you were not able to provide a reivew that contradicted the systematic review.[6]QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to find a source which contradicts the review? You added several sources that don't contradict the review. You are misusing those sources to undermine the review.[8] If you can't find a reliable source that contradicts the review then don't try and misuse sources to undermine the review. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors did think the sources disagreed, but I'll let them speak on the talk page.[9] Which editors thought the sources you added to the article disagreed with the recent review? QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply.
I was making note that the website does have banner promotional links. This is a fact. See it for yourself. I'm not sure why anyone would support an unreliable promotional chiropractic literature against RS. I'm not saying you support it. There was no baiting on my part. QuackGuru (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On your addition to the chiropractic mediation page, you write very well - how old are you? How long do these mediation cases usually take to come to fruition? Additionally, I am curious, are you a chiropractor? Respond here and not on my talk page as I am watching here. Javsav (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Javsav... I'm not a chiropractor, just interested in the subject, as well as touchy Wikipedia articles in general, especially if I see a little (or a lot) of bias in them. Mediations take as long as required to get people involved (including a mediator), hash out issues, come to a consensus, and agree to solutions. In other words, it can take a while. This one seems kind of unlikely to progress, since QuackGuru hasn't chimed in yet. Maybe once we get down to more concrete issues. Part of the issue is that the editing environment stuff are not always easily helped by mediation. We will, however, hopefully get some other opinions on the article. It's best to keep things specific and to try and find concrete issues that can be addressed. I'm not sure what would come of us saying, "you're mean and stubborn" and QG saying "you're idiots who don't get policy and want to push Chiropractic". So, I might not be sure the results will be dramatic, but it could help move things along. Ocaasi (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)... Old enough to have gone to college. Not old enough to have gone to a Disco. Ocaasi (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha nice re college/disco. Yes well I've been looking at the other mediation pages and it only works if the disagreeing user isn't stubborn - if he is, he will continue to sprout the same misinterpreted policy over and over again and commandeer the page, in which instance, it will be time to call an admin Javsav (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to see pending changing continuing. I personally feel that this tool will improve the encyclopedia and that is what matters in the end. I also feel that 65% support is sufficient and no good arguements were put forth for turning it off. We need to attract academics and increase our legitimacy and this will help achieve this. I deal with so much vandalism it gets kind off depressing at times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
"Two reviews of published studies on chiropractic practices found a lack of good methodology in the studies that were examined." was added by Sir Anon.
This is attribution in the text and a violation of WP:ASF. The part "in the studies that were examined" is also editorializing which is a common problem on Wikipedia.
"Two reviews of published studies on chiropractic practices" is still a violation of ASF whern there is no serious dispute. I asked on the talk page which reference said there are "Two reviews of published studies" in accordance with WP:V.
Do we have recent reviews that say the evidence base is good / excellent? If there is no disagreement of equal quality than I agree with ASF. ASF expects that we should assert these views as facts, without the distraction of attribution (after all, anyone can see the reference used for the text).
What we mean is that when it is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it can be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when it is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it can be attributed using this sort of inline-text attribution.
Most facts, except the most obvious ones - like “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher” - must be verified through a reliable source regardless of whether it is a truthful statement. However, for WP:ASF, it is how we present the verified text from reliable sources.
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts, in this sense. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them.
Requiring an inline qualifier for widespread consensus of reliable sources on the grounds that it is "opinion" would allow a contrarian reader to insist on an inline qualifier for material about which there is no serious dispute, using the argument that the material is an "opinion". This would mean, in the end, that all material in Wikipedia would require an inline qualifier, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it, which is not the goal of ASF. Presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none.
This sourced sentence was deleted from the Effectiveness section: "A 2010 systematic review found there is no good evidence to assume that chiropractic neck manipulation is effective for any medical condition.<ref name=Ernst-death/>"
This direct quote did verify the claim Sir Anon deleted. Without explanation for the second time Sir Anon removed the above sentence, added duplicate material about risk-benefit that is from the Risk-benefit section, and added an unreliable source from ChiroACCESS. This unreliable article is not a response from a peer-reviewed journal or from an expert researcher on the subject of chiropractic.
Chiroaccess is not a reliable source and cannot per WP:MEDRS be used to refute a review article. Now if Anthony L. Rosner published his own review and it came to different conclusions than yes we could add him. The article in Chiroaccess is an opinion piece, with no evidence of peer-review or quality of editorial oversight for the publication process. It fails WP:RS. The only possible way Rosner's opinion could be considered to meet RS is to demonstrate here that he is an acknowledged, published expert in this field. Even then, it will fail WP:MEDRS, since it is a primary WP:SPS and cannot be used to rebut a secondary source such as Ernst's review. Many reviews will have critics, but there are no grounds for including every (or any) piece of criticism of a secondary source unless that criticism enjoys wide-spread support as evidenced by other reviews expressing that view. That does not appear to be the case here.
Trying to "balance" Ernst's study like this is not good editing: "A 2010 review by Edzard Ernst focusing on deaths after chiropractic care stated that the risks of spinal manipulation "far outweigh its benefit".[23] The study received criticism in chiropractic literature, with one review calling it "blatantly misleading", citing a lack of risk-benefit analysis and the inclusion of deaths that were not related to chiropractic care.[114]" We shouldn't juxtapose peer reviewed literature with the opinions of chiropracters or chiropractic promotional articles. Of course chiropracters won't like a study that says that their practice may not be so safe. The reference is not even peer-reviewed or from a journal. References like this were removed a long time ago from this article. They were replaced with peer-reviewed literature per WP:MEDASSESS. Chiroaccess cannot possibly be considered a reliable source, and not even for the opinions of the author of the article, because they don't meet WP:SPS.
Per OR: Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.
Per V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
Which sentence from the reference verified the word "Critics"?
The extensive recent literature from reliable references currently used in the Chiropractic page supports the fact that there has been progress in terms of research per MEDRS.
Clin J Pain. 2006 Mar-Apr;22(3):278-85.
Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review.
Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA.
Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (URJC), Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. cesarfdlp@yahoo.es
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A systematic review was performed to establish whether manual therapies have specific efficacy in reducing pain from tension-type headache (TTH).
METHODS: Computerized literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, MANTIS, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane databases. Papers were included if they described clinical (open noncontrolled studies) or randomized controlled trials in which any form of manual therapy was used for TTH, and if they were published after 1994 in the English language. The methodologic quality of the trials was assessed using the PEDro scale. Levels of scientific evidence, based on the quality and the outcomes of the studies, were established for each manual therapy: strong, moderate, limited, and inconclusive evidence.
RESULTS: Only six studies met the inclusion criteria. These trials evaluated different manual therapy modalities: spinal manipulation (three trials), classic massage (one trial), connective tissue manipulation (two trials), soft tissue massage (one trial), Dr. Cyriax's vertebral mobilization (one trial), manual traction (one trial), and CV-4 craniosacral technique (one trial). Methodologic PEDro quality scores ranged from 2 to 8 points out of a theoretical maximum of 10 points (mean=5.8+/-2.1). Analysis of the quality and the outcomes of all trials did not provide rigorous evidence that manual therapies have a positive effect in reducing pain from TTH: spinal manipulative therapy showed inconclusive evidence of effectiveness (level 4), whereas soft tissue techniques showed limited evidence (level 3).
CONCLUSIONS: The authors found no rigorous evidence that manual therapies have a positive effect in the evolution of TTH. The most urgent need for further research is to establish the efficacy beyond placebo of the different manual therapies currently applied in patients with TTH.
The text "A 2006 review found no rigorous evidence supporting SM or other manual therapies for tension headache." is supported by Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA (2006). "Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review". Clin J Pain. 22 (3): 278–85. doi:10.1097/01.ajp.0000173017.64741.86. PMID16514329.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Headache. 2005 Jun;45(6):738-46.
Physical treatments for headache: a structured review.
Biondi DM.
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary headache disorders, especially migraine, are commonly accompanied by neck pain or other symptoms. Because of this, physical therapy (PT) and other physical treatments are often prescribed. This review updates and synthesizes published clinical trial evidence, systematic reviews, and case series regarding the efficacy of selected physical modalities in the treatment of primary headache disorders.
METHODS: The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE), The Cochrane Library, and other sources of information were searched through June 2004 to identify clinical studies, systematic reviews, case series, or other information published in English that assessed the treatment of headache or migraine with chiropractic, osteopathic, PT, or massage interventions.
RESULTS: PT is more effective than massage therapy or acupuncture for the treatment of TTH and appears to be most beneficial for patients with a high frequency of headache episodes. PT is most effective for the treatment of migraine when combined with other treatments such as thermal biofeedback, relaxation training, and exercise. Chiropractic manipulation demonstrated a trend toward benefit in the treatment of TTH, but evidence is weak. Chiropractic manipulation is probably more effective in the treatment of tension-type headache (TTH) than it is in the treatment of migraine. Evidence is lacking regarding the efficacy of these treatments in reducing headache frequency, intensity, duration, and disability in many commonly encountered clinical situations. Many of the published case series and controlled studies are of low quality.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Further studies of improved quality are necessary to more firmly establish the place of physical modalities in the treatment of primary headache disorders. With the exception of high velocity chiropractic manipulation of the neck, the treatments are unlikely to be physically dangerous, although the financial costs and lost treatment opportunity by prescribing potentially ineffective treatment may not be insignificant. In the absence of clear evidence regarding their role in treatment, physicians and patients are advised to make cautious and individualized judgments about the utility of physical treatments for headache management; in most cases, the use of these modalities should complement rather than supplant better-validated forms of therapy.
The text "A 2005 review found that the evidence was weak for effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for tension headache, and that it was probably more effective for tension headache than for migraine." is supported by Biondi DM (2005). "Physical treatments for headache: a structured review". Headache. 45 (6): 738–46. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x. PMID15953306.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(3):CD001878.
Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache.
Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M, Evans R, Goldsmith CH, Assendelft WJ, Bouter LM.
Wolfe-Harris Center for Clinical Studies, Northwestern Health Sciences University, 2501 W 84th St, Bloomington, MN 55431, USA. gbronfort@nwhealth.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-invasive physical treatments are often used to treat common types of chronic/recurrent headache.
OBJECTIVES: To quantify and compare the magnitude of short- and long-term effects of non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases from their inception to November 2002: MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, Dissertation Abstracts, CENTRAL, and the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative Care and Supportive Care review group. Selected complementary medicine reference systems were searched as well. We also performed citation tracking and hand searching of potentially relevant journals.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches to any type of control.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers abstracted trial information and scored trials for methodological quality. Outcomes data were standardized into percentage point and effect size scores wherever possible. The strength of the evidence of effectiveness was assessed using pre-specified rules.
MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with a total of 2628 patients (age 12 to 78 years) met the inclusion criteria. Five types of headache were studied: migraine, tension-type, cervicogenic, a mix of migraine and tension-type, and post-traumatic headache. Ten studies had methodological quality scores of 50 or more (out of a possible 100 points), but many limitations were identified. We were unable to pool data because of study heterogeneity. For the prophylactic treatment of migraine headache, there is evidence that spinal manipulation may be an effective treatment option with a short-term effect similar to that of a commonly used, effective drug (amitriptyline). Other possible treatment options with weaker evidence of effectiveness are pulsating electromagnetic fields and a combination of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [TENS] and electrical neurotransmitter modulation. For the prophylactic treatment of chronic tension-type headache, amitriptyline is more effective than spinal manipulation during treatment. However, spinal manipulation is superior in the short term after cessation of both treatments. Other possible treatment options with weaker evidence of effectiveness are therapeutic touch; cranial electrotherapy; a combination of TENS and electrical neurotransmitter modulation; and a regimen of auto-massage, TENS, and stretching. For episodic tension-type headache, there is evidence that adding spinal manipulation to massage is not effective. For the prophylactic treatment of cervicogenic headache, there is evidence that both neck exercise (low-intensity endurance training) and spinal manipulation are effective in the short and long term when compared to no treatment. There is also evidence that spinal manipulation is effective in the short term when compared to massage or placebo spinal manipulation, and weaker evidence when compared to spinal mobilization. There is weaker evidence that spinal mobilization is more effective in the short term than cold packs in the treatment of post-traumatic headache.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: A few non-invasive physical treatments may be effective as prophylactic treatments for chronic/recurrent headaches. Based on trial results, these treatments appear to be associated with little risk of serious adverse effects. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-invasive physical treatments require further research using scientifically rigorous methods. The heterogeneity of the studies included in this review means that the results of a few additional high-quality trials in the future could easily change the conclusions of our review.
The text "A 2004 review found that SM may be effective for migraine and tension headache, and SM and neck exercises may be effective for cervicogenic headache." is supported by Bronfort G, Nilsson N, Haas M; et al. (2004). "Non-invasive physical treatments for chronic/recurrent headache". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3): CD001878. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001878.pub2. PMID15266458. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr;99(4):192-6.
A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation.
Ernst E, Canter PH.
Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter & Plymouth, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK. Edzard.Ernst@pms.ac.uk
Comment in:
J R Soc Med. 2007 Oct;100(10):444; author reply 447.
J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):278; author reply 279-80.
J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):278-9; author reply 279-80.
J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):277-8, author reply 279-80.
J R Soc Med. 2006 Jun;99(6):277; author reply 279-80.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically collate and evaluate the evidence from recent systematic reviews of clinical trials of spinal manipulation.
DESIGN: Literature searches were carried out in four electronic databases for all systematic reviews of the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in any indication, published between 2000 and May 2005. Reviews were defined as systematic if they included an explicit and repeatable inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies.
RESULTS: Sixteen papers were included relating to the following conditions: back pain (n=3), neck pain (n=2), lower back pain and neck pain (n=1), headache (n=3), non-spinal pain (n=1), primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea (n=1), infantile colic (n=1), asthma (n=1), allergy (n=1), cervicogenic dizziness (n=1), and any medical problem (n=1). The conclusions of these reviews were largely negative, except for back pain where spinal manipulation was considered superior to sham manipulation but not better than conventional treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment.
"A 2006 review found no rigorous evidence supporting SM or other manual therapies for tension headache.[131] A 2005 review found that the evidence was weak for effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for tension headache, and that it was probably more effective for tension headache than for migraine.[132] A 2004 review found that SM may be effective for migraine and tension headache, and SM and neck exercises may be effective for cervicogenic headache.[133] Two other systematic reviews published between 2000 and May 2005 did not find conclusive evidence in favor of SM.[108]"
Per MEDRS: * Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.
Per MEDRS: "These guidelines are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published".
We should not relax the reference selection because there are currently plenty of sources on the topic of hand. There has not been little progress and there has not been a few reviews being published. In fact, there has been a lot of progress and there has been more than a few reviews on the topic. MEDRS is not a policy but for alternative medicine articles like Chiropractic editors have followed MEDRS.
Let's stay away from sources older than 5 years old. They're too dated. If a subject hasn't been reviewed in the past 5 years, then it's probably not worth summarizing here.
Again, there is no intent to ignore old data. If old data is still important, it should appear in a recent review. If it doesn't appear, that's good evidence that it wasn't that important after all, at least according to published expert reviewers.
Wikipedia is not the place to conduct research reviews on our own, overriding reviews already published by experts in the field. Multiple reviews are cited in Chiropractic; they are from many different authors. Other reliable review sources are welcome, as per the usual WP:MEDRS guidelines. Reaching down into primary studies is dubious.
No argument has been put forth that the reviews in question are incongruent with the topic at hand. On the contrary, the reviews are quite congruent with the topic of effectiveness. There is no good reason to disregard reliable reviews and to substitute our own opinion about the the reviewed studies.
Every section must have a certain amount of information to thoroughly cover each specific topic. I think we are going to keep the reference until a newer, similar reference would replace Bondi 2005. We can strive for 5 but don't disqualify a ref because it is six or seven years old.
Using dated unreliable references to argue against much newer high quality references like the 2004 Cochrane Database Syst Rev is against MEDRS. I see WP:CON to remove the dated 1978 articles from the chiropractic page. Editors should try to stick within five years using recent reviews. If the section is very short then we can relax MEDRS a bit to include an additional ref or two. See Talk:Chiropractic#Unreliable references against MEDRS.
Failed verification
This change by another editor was made without explanation and does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view. Then this claim did not identify substantial benefits failed verification and seems to be your own personal interpretation. We report what the source say not review the references ourselves. We don't put words in the cited source's mouth. See WP:V and WP:OR.
It is a personal opinion that the review did not identify substantial benefits to spinal manipulation when it is not in the citation given and not in the results. The text failed verification because it is not in the source.
This edit by Sir Anon did not provide verification for the part of the text that failed verification. The part "did not identify substantial benefits" is still original research. I tried to discuss the matter with Sir Anon but the editor just reverted my comment without explanation.
Per WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.
All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.
The source did not support the claim "did not identify substantial benefits"[failed verification] to spinal manipulation. It is true that the systematic review did not identify or say that were substantial benefits to chiropractic neck spinal manipulation. When the reference did not verify or support the claim that the source "did not identify substantial benefits" to spinal manipulation it is absolutely WP:OR. Per WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in chiropractic is verifiability, not truth. So the text did fail verification.
The direct quote did not verify the claim "did not identify substantial benefits" per WP:OR or WP:V. But the direct quote did verify the claim "A 2010 systematic review found there is no good evidence to assume that chiropractic neck manipulation is effective for any medical condition.<ref name=Ernst-death/>" that Sir Anon deleted without a specific explanation.
You added text that Talk:Chiropractic#Failed verification and Talk:Chiropractic#The word Critics failed verification. Please explain why you think it is appropriate to include original research in the chiropractic page. It would help if you went to the talk page and explain this. I have repeatedly asked for verification but you have not provided it. So far your comments in the discussion did not provide verifaction for the disputed text you added to the article. Do you agree that it would be best that the original research you added to the chiropractic page should be removed since you were not able to verify the text. QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think QuackGuru or someone else deleted the discussions that lead to the page from the talk page because they could not even be found in the archives. I went through the history and pasted one of them into the cabal. C====3 Javsav (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC) 8====D[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic review about safety on chiropractic and quack guru reverting
Hi Ocaasi, would you mind adding me on facebook(if you have it)? I'd like to talk privately.
my profile is [removed for privacy reasons]
(and no, unfortunately i am not a girl, just a song by an artist that i love.) cheers! i think when you add you can leave a personalised message so i know it is you
Javsav, I don't know what we can talk about privately that we can't talk about publicly. Even criticism of QG's editing style is not a secret. Let's keep it out in the open as a sign of our reasonble tactics. Also, did you sign your posts with phallic symbols??? Ocaasi03:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ocaasi - sorry hadn't been in the chat, was very nice of you to set it up. I had been studying for my OSCES in less than two weeks. I'll be in now constantly as my laptop is on constantly, so give me a yell next time you;re on. --Javsav (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting your well-worded message to user:121.220.77.220. He has stopped making wholesale changes. You are right of course, the edits are not vandalism per se, but it was late and I couldn't think of where to ask for advice. I have now posted a message at WP:MILHIST to ask for input. Regards, --Diannaa(Talk)16:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your mass edits were not copy editing and you substantially weakened FAQ for no good reason. You did not leave a comment on the FAQ talk page explaining you want to weaken FAQ because you think it was too strongly worded. Why do you think your edits were just copy edits. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the letter and the explanation of why my editing was undone. I am very disappointed that Wikipedia has published what is currently written about Chiropractic. To be honest I am wondering how I go about challenging what is currently on there? Do I have to submit a different version or can I challenge what is there now without submitting a new article? I would love to take half a day and put together a well put together article with references. At this time I am taking 28 credit hours so my time is very pressed. Please let me know what I can do to get the false information removed from this article. I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia was very strict on the accuracy of the data that is currently published. I will do my best to follow what ever instructions that you provide. Just to be sure I am acting in the best interest of my school and profession I am going to approach our legal department tomorrow and let them know about this obviously malicious attempt to slander chiropractic.
Moved from Talk:Pseudoscience. "QG: I didn't ask for a generic assessment of NPOV issues, I asked you about this particular case. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)"
I have some thoughts on this I'm working up. Maybe you'll be able to give feedback. I want to lay out that we do have some guidance here, just not explicit guidance, and not the guidance you would prefer. So there are two questions I see: one, how much guidance is needed; and two, which guidance.
I think laying out a really comprehensive policy on attribution, that can take into account both your concerns about Fringe issues and Pseudoscience as well as other editors concerns about overly emphasizing statements as facts will take some careful writing. In the meantime, I haven't seen a mob of people blowing up Wiki with damaging attributions.
In particular, at the Pseudoscience article, I find the discussion to be insightful. You (and I) initially preferred no attribution. Kenosis acted conservatively by adding it. Ludwigs reasoned that we would need more support to establish pseudoscience as a standard aspect of scientific literacy. Now we have to go find more sources. There's something really beneficial about that process.
While unnecessary attribution can lead to dilution, somewhat stronger requirements for stating things as general facts should improve the sourcing and temper claims which might otherwise be overbroad. In short, in the absence of ASF there is a chance to craft better guidance on policy, and there is, as always, the reasoning of editors. Ocaasi (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reality, in the termination of ASF, it is likely that new editors will make common mistakes and unintentionally add in-text attribution and experiences editors will eventually forget there ever was ASF. According to ASF, when there is no serious dispute the text can be asserted but Ludwigs2 argument is that there must be consensus among sources or for non-controversial text anyone who personally disagrees with the source can add in-text attribution. I can't see how it will help improve Wikipedia pages when editors are all over the place with different arguments rather than relying on policy. How could it be neutral to suggest there is a serious disagreemnt where there is none. For a BLP article, implying there is a serious dispute where there is none is a BLP violation. Now, NPOV conflicts with BLP. This is a serious matter. QuackGuru (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QG, I understand your concern, but new editors didn't know what ASF was anyway, and experienced editors are concerned about creating a quality encyclopedia regardless of policy. Ludwigs did set a higher bar for assertion, and somewhere in between that bar and yours, is where I think proper policy lies. The idea that editors will be all over the place in a bad way assumes that rather than making intelligent and fitting choices narrowly tailored to each article, that they will just go crazy. Strict policies are only useful because they limit debate and have consistency; they don't always produce ideal results, though.
You asked the question, 'How could it be neutral to suggest there is a serious disagreement when there is none', but that question relies on a strong assumption: that attribution always implies a serious dispute. Why can't it just mean 'lack of fact or broad-consensus status'. Attribution is also appropriate for obvious cases of opinion, but also statements that are uncontested but don't seem to be universally true. You want to put the burden of proof on the attributers; at Pseudoscience, Ludwigs suggested it should be on the asserters. Either is reasonable, but a sound policy would put the burden on a more nuanced breakdown of whatever will lead to the best outcome. (While attribution under ASF implied a contested item, there was nothing inherently correct about putting the burden of justifying attribution entirely on competing sources. It strikes me as equally overbroad to craft a policy that says: always use attribution unless you can demonstrate consensus. Neither extreme is necessary.)
As for the BLP issues, I don't think I follow your example. If we say, "According to The Newspaper, Actress Jane is pregnant" instead of "Actress Jane is Pregnant", how is that more risky?
Last, and not most importantly, if you have these very severe worries, why do you think that other experienced editors don't share them? Ocaasi (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2 substantially changed ASF without ever gaining consensus. Ludwigs2 continuously edits NPOV policy without consensus and deletes long established parts of policy.[18][19][20] Editors are concerned Ludwigs2 is forcing changes to NPOV policy, while not adhering to the advice of WP:PG#Substantive changes.[21][22][23] Ludwigs2 has exported the disagreement with long term NPOV to V policy, and refuse to abide by consensus at NPOV. Ludwigs2 wrote in part: "such as the fact/opinion distinction, which I disapprove of". Ludwigs2 is personally against the intent of long established ASF when the editor admitted he disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. It is the aim of Ludwigs2 to remove ASF because Ludwigs2 disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. Ludwigs2 has not explained the mass changes and did not gain consensus.
refactored here by Ocassi.
Other editors do share my concern. Editors have previously tried to rewrite NPOV earlier this year and there was a RFC and it was agreed upon to restore NPOV. Then months later editors rewrote NPOV again against consensus. For non-controversial text using in-text attribution will dilute Wikipedia articles. "According to" implies a serious dispute. Do you really support the mass changes to a policy page when the changes drastically weakened the meaning of ASF and now editors are arguing without any direction at Talk:Pseudoscience with the attribution in the text that was against NPOV less than a week ago. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though I still think it's worth trying to just write policy that can handle more situations well.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to show me below. I see that Kotniski, Ludwigs, and others wanted to rewrite NPOV to be less explicit and more simple. I see that you, and some others who are particularly concerned with Pseudoscience/Fringe articles running amok wanted to keep ASF. My preference is for the policy to be both simpler and better tailored to the attribution issues. I don't think it's there yet, but this rewrite seems to me to be a cleaner draft to go from.
I guess my question, then, is, the NPOV rewrite has been up for several days now, and you seem to be the primary opponent... if there's a lot of opposition to it, where is it? I imagine an RfC will have to approve the rewrite sooner or later (and Ludgwigs suggested as much), but in the meantime, are people really just not paying attention? Ocaasi (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rewrite is less explicit and vague. You think a more simple version that resulted in a more vague version is somehow a cleaner version. Now Ludwigs2 is arguing that editors should show consensus among reliables sources or otherwise attribution in the text is appropriate rather than the previous meaning of ASF was that the statement can be asserted without attribution in the text when there is no serious dispute. Policy is not cleaner. In a nutshell, the mass rewrite without consensus is incoherent and makes little sense. The rewrite was more than less simple. It changed the meaninng of ASF and now editors are changing there argument such as at Talk:Pseudoscience with comments that are all over the place. QuackGuru (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback on the chiropractic section. I will more closely follow the guidelines you mentioned in the future. I am just now learning how this all works and want to work within the current system. thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock climber02 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your patience with my learning curve. I will take some time to more thorougly read some of the talk points. There are multiple studies that do not have the extreme anti chiropractic findings that are currently cited on the page. I will attempt to do a better job at displaying this. Thanks again for your constructive criticism and feedback. Rock climber02 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help and feed-back. I am working on doing just as you described for a much less controversial topic on this subject, that of chiropractic education. The current information is highly inaccurate and this should be easy enough to substantiate. Thanks again and I really appreciate your help in understanding the process.Rock climber02 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your revert here, please read MOS:BOLDTITLE#Descriptive titles: If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. (For a tongue-in-cheek but very succinct and accurate summary of the reasoning behind this, see Wikipedia:Stop bolding everything.) My edit was 100% correct. Your revert was not, please undo it. Thank you. --87.78.31.89 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit at WP:SPOILER was a matter of personal taste, the MOS does not apply to project space pages (i.e., the reasoning for your revert there is not valid, but what the heck). Wrt to an account: been there, done that. Compared to my experiences from my tenure as a registered editor, the frustration I suffer at the hand of trigger-happy Twinkle-abusers is minuscule.
However, the formatting correction I made at Chiropractic controversy and criticism is pretty much non-negotioably correct. Bolding separate words or word groups is just obviously idiotic. You either see it or you don't. Now have a nice day and I hope you enjoy those idiotically bolded separate word groups. Thanks for being part of the problem, mate. --87.78.31.89 (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that MEDRS is only appropriate on pages with medically related articles. As for explicit information about ASF I'm not sure it would be appropriate unless it was simply a link/summary of WP:ASSERT, which explains the variety of issues around attribution and the presentation of facts and opinions.
I think what you're trying to accomplish by informing editors is a good idea, but since you have a strong predisposition to a certain policy aspect and a strict interpretation of that policy, one which is informed by your generally skeptical approach to alternative medicine, I'm not sure that there is sufficient consensus to actually make such a template. But I support the idea, if it works. Ocaasi (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideal sources for biomedical assertions.
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing scientific findings, evidence, facts, and legal aspects; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Where a topic is subject to a significant amount of academic research – whether it be hard science, social science or the humanities – Wikipedia articles should accurately reflect the current status of research.
Academic publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and books published by well-regarded academic presses, are usually the most reliable sources where available. Non-academic sources can be used, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This includes books by reputable publishers as well as newspapers, magazines, journals and electronic media.
In topics which are the subject of scholarly research, the most authoritative sources are usually academic works that have undergone scrutiny by a community of experts in a field, particularly peer-reviewed systematic reviews. Quality mainstream media sources can be used for areas such as current affairs – including the socio-economic, political, and human impact of science – or biographies of living persons. Non-academic sources may misreport or misinterpret data and its significance, and should therefore not be relied upon exclusively as sources of that kind of material where academic secondary sources are available. The full guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
I have previously worked on a summary for reliable sources. The above three paragraphs can go into a template. MEDRS applies to any article where there is a medical claim. You or I can summarise the consensus version of ASF. Of course, for a template it must be simpler (shorter) than the policy version but still properly summarise ASF. Either you are going to agree with this specific proposal or I will not spend several hours working on it without consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I would like to see where it's going. You know up front that: I like the idea of instructions; I prefer that anything policy oriented be seen by eyes at NPOV and rather than just chiropractic; I agree with MEDRS (applied specifically to medical issues); I agree with using scholarly research where it is available; I agree with using quality non-academic sources for medical issues so long as they are used appropriately; I think that alternative medicine articles exist somewhere between MEDRS and RS, and think MEDRS can be overly applied here in certain circumstances, particularly the non-research parts of the article; I don't agree with your general interpretation of ASF that in every instance where something can be stated as fact that it must; I take general concern that issues can be complex and a rigid application of ASF can oversimplify or overstate (just like a too loose application of ASF can dilute claims and allow undue influence); I no longer see the prior version of ASF as having broad consensus support--if that is an issue then NPOV is the place to go first; I think WP:ASSERT is the closest we have to a comprehensive instruction here.
All of those things factor in to my understanding of policy here, and I'm not sure if we have consensus about them. So, don't invest yourself if it's conditional on total agreement, but do continue to present these issues to me and others if you think it will improve things. Your idea is also similar to the discussions about academic sourcing that have been going on over at WP:SCIRS; maybe it would be appropriate to try and draft something and bring it there, too. Ocaasi (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the abnormal changes to ASSERT is incoherent to comprehend. It does not even have the examples of the inline qualifiers. It was removed without consnesus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, if along with your above MEDRS guideline, we could combine the following, I'd be interested:
Achieving what Wikipedia understands as "neutrality" often means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of sources, and then attempting to convey the results to the reader clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. There are few hard-and-fast rules for doing this—much depends on the good faith of editors, who should be striving to provide information, not promote a particular cause. However, observing the following principles, together with those of verifiability, will help to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Avoid stating opinions as facts. It is expected that articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects, but these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice—they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide is widely considered to be an evil action" or that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, it is normally necessary to treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and avoid presenting them as direct statements.
Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Seemingly factual, uncontested assertions made by reliable sources should normally be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, and the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.
Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. Ocaasi (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a summary of the consensus version of ASF. You have not shown consensus for the mass change to core policy and you have not shown how ASF was improved by making it weaker (simpler). QuackGuru (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the summary of assertion guidance currently in the NPOV policy. It has been there for almost a month now with almost no objection besides yours. Maybe the consensus version of ASF isn't. You'd have to find other editors who share your view or bring an RfC at NPOV in order to determine whether the policy has abandoned its roots or just been improved as part of a general clean-up. Ocaasi (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi QG, can you identify the specific BLP violation? It is accurate and verifiable that a United States court has found Stephen Barrett not qualified to be a medical expert in certain cases. Whether I personally disagree with him or not is irrelevant. I happen to think he serves a useful purpose by spreading information about possibly fraudulent health claims; I just wish he was less biased in his quest to do so. Are you Stephen Barrett or affiliated with him in some way? Ocaasi (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was a poorly supported and written research article published in a well respected medical journal about the risks of cervical manipulation and stroke. The risks are the same as a patient with neck pain and headache going to a medical doctor. There is actually no causal link that has ever been established other than pure bias. What you have on the sight now is extremely biased and not at all established in fact. The possiblity of having a vbai from cervical manipulation is 1 in 5.8 million. Research has also, proved conclusively how effective chiropractic manipulations are for low back pain and that isn't even up for debate. however, wikipedia states with the "possible," exception of back pain. Chiropractors are the spinal healthcare specialist within the healthcare system and for over a hundred years, there as been adversity because of some of the founders beliefs. Well, chiropractic has evolved from pseudoscience to actual science just like medicine has evolved from blood letting to actual science. Please don't let the bias of a few, spread falsehoods about a profession that has been fighting for respect for and endless amount of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.162.140 (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus your talkpage contributions on the topic of improving the associated article. Attacking your fellow volunteers is not productive. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I found what you're referring to. QuackGuru accused me of possible BLP violations and LIBEL in reference to the NCAHF v. King Bio lawsuit which I was attempting to improve the sourcing of per MastCell's request. After QuackGuru suggested, "You may want to think twice before editing the article again" and "This could be blockworthy if restored without consensus", I asked him which statements he considered to be BLP/LIBEL issues, and after he persisted, I asked if he was the subject of the alleged violation and if he had a COI in this area; I also inquired whether he intended to sue me or otherwise pursue a legal action with the foundation to address the LIBEL.
I take BLP issues into consideration, but LIBEL issues are WP:LEGAL and can't be tossed around without either a) chilling effects or b) an actual process to evaluate/resolve the claim. In a comment explaining why I asked if QuackGuru had a COI, I wrote, "QuackGuru, as his name suggests edits almost exclusively on alternative medicine articles and almost always to promote skeptical or medical claims while excluding alternative or non-medical claims. After his repeated warnings about BLP violations and Libel, I asked him if he had personal involvement in this area."
I don't think anyone would dispute the above, although it may be better not on an article's talk page. I was, however, responding to a BLP allegation, and inquiries from both Arthur Rubin and Shot info regarding my questions, which I thought was a reasonable response to their various claims and questioning. If you want to know more, you might read this thread at AN/I. Otherwise, I can look at striking or removing the specific comment you find objectionable, and then un-collapse the response to a BLP thread which QuackGuru initiated, along with the 'sniping' hat.
I agree that talk pages are for subjects not editors, but when an attempt to discuss actual sources was met with legal/administrative threats of libel and blocks, responding to those claims, while continuing the content discussion, seems somewhat short of what you're suggesting. Ocaasi (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the comments that addressed specific claims about QuackGuru, and un-collapsed the thread. I left responses which were generally part of explaining my response. If you think I missed something, let me know. If you want to re-hat the convo with a thread besides 'sniping', once you think that issue has been removed, that's seems fair.
Generally, there is an extremely hair-trigger response to issues surrounding QuackWatch, NCAHF, and Stephen Barrett. I don't have a problem treading carefully in these content areas, but prohibiting any discussion of these public organizations, advocates, and lawsuits in which they have engaged is not just tricky, but I think misses the boat on NPOV.
There are published legal rulings which have been commented on in several sources, some of them clearly reliable, others just relevant--and some of them from the NCAHF or QuackWatch themselves. So, I won't really back away from these issues just because they are tricky, but I can keep discussion of other editors on pages specifically addressing their actions (either AN/I or WQA or RfC), if necessary. I was under the impression that if an editor on an article talk page addressed something I did on a usertalk page that I could address it on the article talk page. Perhaps not the best response. Let me know if you have any other questions or thoughts. Ocaasi (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The actual policy has moved on from the mindless "policy trumps guidelines" notion promoted by a handful of editors, to what the community has always supported, which is that conflicts between pages need to be resolved so that all pages are accurate. See, e.g.,
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content, "When apparent discrepancies arise between pages, editors at all the affected pages should discuss how they can most accurately represent the community's current position, and correct all of the pages to reflect the community's view."
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Conflicts_between_advice_pages, "If policy and guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice."
One of the reasons that the community chose to reject the "policy trumps guidelines" idea is that it has become very difficult to correct or clarify certain policies, even when it is apparent that the policy no longer reflects the community's actual views. As a result, it's sometimes the case that the policy is wrong, and the guideline is right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that explanation is helpful. I understood the 'disclaimer' as being just a holdover so that if there was a conflict, in the meantime policy would take precedence and have to change first. A few questions:
I agree that the more important issue is that edits reflect whatever is accurate... if something is accurate, why wouldn't it show up as consensus on the relevant policy page?
If a guideline does some cutting edge revision to reflect actual usage, shouldn't policy have to 'affirm' that the change is in line with the overarching spirit of the policy.
If there is a conflict between a particular guideline and a policy, or between guidelines, or between policies, or between the whole shebang... where should it be discussed?
I much prefer a Wiki where editors can make intelligent choices based on context, but I also would like that the network of policies and guidelines be accessible, coherent, and mutually consistent. However that gets done is cool with me. Ocaasi (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some (not all) of the policy pages have an WP:OWNership problem. More commonly, however, different parts of the encyclopedia legitimately have different needs. For example, the ideal class of sources for an article on Heart disease is probably not the ideal class of sources on whatever the newest big television show is. So User:HeartDiseaseRUs might try to change the content policy to favor academic sources, and User:LuvMyTV might be very unhappy—because brand-new TV shows usually aren't the subject of any academic sources (yet). In the instant case, SlimVirgin does a lot of work around animal rights activism, and many pro-rights sources would be considered "high-quality" in that field, but only be considered of moderate quality by medical standards.
No, because we can WP:Ignore all rules when that improves the encyclopedia. Furthermore, changing practice by writing an essay (or a guideline, in previous years) specifically to recommend a new practice is a long-standing, community-approved practice. Also, there's the practical issue: There are 50 policies, and a couple hundred guidelines. Just reading all of the changes made or proposed each day would take hours.
On any relevant page, with invitations to participate at all the relevant talk pages (see WP:PROPOSAL for advice). Personally, I'd have the discussion at the page that I thought needed to be fixed, but any page is okay. If multiple pages need fixing, you can set up a separate page (often done as an WP:RFC).
Ocaasi. My suggestion is to get noticeboard input on the matter. You are being bullied by QG and others, but it wont stop unless you are correct and get outsiders to chime in on that. I had a very similar problem with User:Ronz who kept on deleting a comment by User:BruceGrubb because it contained links to those same court cases. We were, at the time, discussing Barrett's reliability as a source. When outsiders commented at the BLP/N and AN/I they all agreed that there was no BLP or LIBEL issue in Bruce's comments. I can't say this is equivalent, but when someone claims you are violating policy it's best to simply, and humbly request outside input, especially when it is clear that those who are accusing you of policy violation cannot or will not supply you with the rationale (as is the current situation - and as was the situation with Ronz). Good luck. I still think the BLP/N is your best bet. Keep in mind, of course, that others may actually think that there is a BLP concern here. It's also, clearly best to be open to that possibility as well.Griswaldo (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I did ask if QG had a COI in affiliation with the case, and then commented on his editing pattern on an article talk page. That probably wasn't the best response, but it is not a part of the blp/libel issue. I need qualification about the notion that legal decisions, even from US district and appellate courts cannot be verbatim cited for merely descriptive statements about the court's ruling insofar as it mentions a living person. That's also aside from the issue of secondary sources and Weight. So it's obviously complicated, but I was a bit surprised to see the discussion on the merits of things turn so quickly to policy breaches and implied punitive what-not. I didn't help the matter by responding about specific editors' behaviors or biases, but I suspected there would be a little more focus on the NCAHF, and the lawsuits, and their sourcing. I'll be a little less broadly editor-focused in my responses, particularly on article talk pages... Thanks again for your opinion. I'll try and keep working on the sources and see if it becomes relevant for BLP/N.Ocaasi (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI insinuations are never a good idea. I asked Ronz the same question because I was dumbfounded by any other explanation at some point, but dropped the issue after I was met with angry evasion. I should note that his actions in that instance make QG's pale in comparison. Anyway that is immaterial. The point is that when someone challenges an edit based on a policy claim the first thing to do is to get outside input. If you don't have outside support then you'll be seen as disruptive by the community if you insist. If you do have support he other party will be seen as disruptive. Good luck.Griswaldo (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly reminder that every time you leave a message on MastCell's user talk page, it lights up the orange box for MastCell, not for the person you're talking to. If your conversation doesn't directly involve MastCell, you might take it to one of your own talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good point. MastCell was willingly or absently enduring the exchange. I don't think there's much more to discuss. Shot can post here if feels like responding. Thx Ocaasi (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I've noticed you are a frequent user of my software tool, STiki. First, I wanted to thank you for your use of my tool. Second, I wanted to inform you that a new version just became available (see this post on STiki's talk page for a brief summary of changes). I encourage you to download it! Further, keep your bug reports and feature requests flowing in. STiki has now reverted over 25,000 instances of vandalism, and I hope together we can help this number continue to grow. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problem whatsoever. I thought you were refactoring, or maybe just did it by accident. Cheers, see you back in VBA-land Ocaasi (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great question, and you know what, I think it's running. Right now, kinda. Because on Nov 22 or 24th the new release came out. If you look at it, the reject button is there and everything. So this is Pending changes 1.2, or beta. Funny thing is, no one seems to give a sh#t, because what the hell does pending changes do anyway except quietly sit in the background on 1000 articles. That said, I have no idea what's going on with it, and imagine we won't until at least the fundraiser is over. I know that Foundation is busy as heck over there and that even minor changes to the next rollout to PC are being kind of put on the backburner. I think if you didn't mention it, no one would. Think we should? Right now it's kind of a useless tool, but at least it's causing no harm. Maybe that's what's needed, is for people to be able to point out, hey, you didn't even notice this thing existed... how bad could it be!"
Then again, I'm sure the first mention of expanding to 500 more articles or a BLP trial will cause bombs to go off. I say, let pending dogs lie. In a few weeks, let's reconvene to try and draft or prompt some sensible trial language. My guess is from January through March. Actually, one way to get the trial started sooner would be to suggest we start it in March. Then everyone will huff about how it is being postponed for ages and we can start the trial pronto for sure. Propose a poll in June and we can be drafting trial language tomorrow. Ocaasi (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like they did a few changes to the software but no one can be bothered to run a trial. Not surprising, given the amount of drama involved in the last trial.
I enjoyed your comments on the perverse way some arguments go. The thing is, I would like the trial to be put off until at least March so we can think about what we are doing in advance. I guess there are a number of options for what to do next, but something that might be worth considering is to just keep PCs ticking over and see what incremental improvements can be made - no expansion or contraction and no trial, in the sense that we aren't looking to make a decision on whether it is a good or bad thing... we are just letting it run on a small number of articles and seeking to improve it.
Yeah, I see no harm in that, except that it might just be too little for anyone's satisfaction. PC haters will cite it as proof that polls are excuses to slip changes through; PC lovers will want it tried out somewhere new; and the Foundation might not devote their precious coding resources to it. So I think at some point we do need to prod it a little, although I agree that doing it before at least February isn't likely to bring any more clarity than the last time. And I'm still burnt out from that poll... Ocaasi (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the reasonable changes I made to the page was not fair. All changes were appropriately sourced. I merely added appropriate context to the situation to demonstrate the severity of the issue by including the exact language that sparked the controversy. This language is included in almost every article covering this incident. It is important to Wikipedia that the phrase used by Thio Li-ann wich likened homosexual sex acts to "shoving a straw up one's nose to drink" be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.63.200 (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your talk page. Indeed, your edits were good. Also, I left some info about a better source you can use. Thanks again! Ocaasi (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can a youtube video of the speech be used? If not I'll find the parliamentary record at a later date, but the reason there are not many good sources is because singapore does not have a free press. the newspapers are all state-controlled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.63.200 (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmm... text is really better. I think a youtube would be overkill at this article anyway, since it's not even primarily about her. Any of the sources on your talk page would be fine, either the insideeducation or new york times for sure. It's just the full text itself that's a little tricky. This isn't a big deal either way, since it's obviously backed up by reliable secondary sources, and it won't effect the edit staying in the article. Ocaasi (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I removed some of the information is because they were spoilers, guess I could of added the tag, but I'm not sure how to use things like that yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.18.251 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was 1 of those tags I never bother to read about (either can't find the page or tl;dr) that mark it as a spoiler, oh well, just put it back to its original then, just had to correct the spelling and didn't think it was right to have the spoilers in, not in terms of an encyclopedic site, but, someone comes on here for information on something, especially when its got several alternatives like a movie and manga etc, you don't want a wiki page ruining it up accidently, cause I hate it when that happens, most pages I read don't blatantly spoil things like that page did. (119.224.18.251 (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah, it's not the first time someone has been upset about it, but it's just the way this site works. Imagine if you purchased a book analyzing your favorite movie; you'd expect it to discuss all of the events. That's how Wiki works too, except instead of complete analysis is complete summary. Ocaasi (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your tool assisted. If you look at discussion I have put my explanation even though it is only a sentence construction edit. There were reported allegations of antisemitism. 'Reported' means the news covered it and it came to us though a report. Without reported it implies 'it was well publicized' at that point in time when the chronological introduction is made. There is one example to back the statement of approx 20 largely unnamed people protesting. There is no doubt as to the validity of the source and it is not cherry picking there is an air of bias. For example if 20 people decide to make allegations against the president about something and it is publicized then there have been reports of allegations. 'There were already allegations' is not unbiased phrasing, there is an air of bias. More references are necessary for that phrasing as it is not a direct quote of the reference.
92.233.71.47 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
92.233.71.47 (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
92.233.71.47 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message on editing help. Indeed, I'm new to this and didn't realize the edit function was available for old versions - which would have been very time saving had I read your message first! I didn't understand what you meant by this, though:
"adding 10K back into a BLP article just to tweak it for another purpose probably won't last long"
What is a "BLP" article? and why won't it last long?
Thank you and I hope to learn more to facilitate easier editing in the future.
Your edits weren't a problem in that way, but they did add back info that was better on another article (the one about Wikileaks or Cablegate).
Thank you once again for your reply to me with clarifications and introductions.
I just wanted to add that I only restored the information in order to copy the editing code and move the information to the main "Reactions to the diplomatic cables" article, as - at that time, pre your helpful advice - I knew no other way. I found the quoted material too good to remove entirely from the Wiki base and subsequently did proceed to move it out. (Someone else has since put some of it back in "for balance".)
I have more reliable sources that state the album sold 8.5 million, not the inflated 12 million that was reported. I don't get why her own record label, Warner Bros. records and Live Nation aren't considered as reliable as a blog from a Chicago Sun Times writer.ARMOR89 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ocaasi,
I have noted that you frequent the "chiropractic" page. As such, I wanted to let you know that I have posted some proposed edits on the respective talk page for other editors to comment on. I hope to systematically go through the entire evidence section over time, as well as other sections that may benefit from attention, but have noticed by reading the talk page that it is a "rough" neighborhood :) Thus, I hope to seek input before I make any changes. Any comments, critisisms, or advice is apppreciated. Best regards, Puhlaa (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, this is most frusterating! It seems that effort is not worthwhile in Chiropractic, as QG acts as a gatekeeper to all changes. I propose something to help maintain NPOV, then he says my proposal is not MEDRS. When I present something that conforms to MEDRS he says it is not MEDASSESS. Then, when I present something that conforms to MEDASSESS, he says its duplicate source. I dont know if its because I am new, but there always seems to be a way to interpret wikipedia policy to stonewall change.
Anyways, I have been offered a compromise, leave out the mention of critiques to Ernst work and leave out the guidelines for low back treatment, and QG will 'conform' to leaving a 2007 review of spinal manipulation for low back pain in the article where it already exists. In other words, dont try to change anything, and he wont remove evidence that manipulation may be effective for back pain. I am thinking that this is not much of a compromise :) I did not expect to recieve such resistance to adding evidence supporting manipualtion for back pain, its not like I am trying to promote manipulation as an alternative to medical care for asthma or anything "quacky". Clearly I have some COI, but I try to take a very evidence informed approach.
As I am new, and dont know all the details to wikipedia, I hope I am not being ignorant in my dialogue with QG. If you note any mis-steps that I make, please let me know. It would be nice if there were more editors involved in the chiropractic page, as it currently remains only a back and forth between myself and someone who clearly doesnt like chiropractic much, but has far more experience then I on wikipedia.Puhlaa (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read WP:OWN and WP:WIKILAWYER and WP:POINT and WP:GAME and WP:TENDENTIOUS to get an idea of how some articles progress (or don't). Having a WP:COI is not a problem as long as you don't edit like it. QuackGuru has frustrated many editors before. See this and this and this and... It might be easier for the community to deal with that editor's behavior before trying to improve the article. Sadly, several editors won't even work on Chiropractic due to this. I can't tell you what to do, except proceed patiently, and don't get pissed. You can also be WP:BOLD and make changes you think are clear improvements, but be very careful, since this is a controversial article with little tolerance for Edit Wars. This is also a chronic problem reflecting a tension between WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SPOV. These articles have been to WP:ARBCOM and back, which is like Wikipedia's Supreme court. In sum, I'm sorry this is your first experience working on Wikipedia; then again, an article like Chiropractic really shouldn't be your first experience. Shoot with any questions you have...Ocaasi (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ocaasi, thanks for the reply and advice. Where exactly do I write out the chronological progression of events? I thought that this is what the talk page archives were for, and I have spent hours scrolling through them following the past discussions over the page. It seems that I am not the first person to be stonewalled there :)Puhlaa (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made much progress with QG, he is difficult for me to understand and just when I think we have agreed on something, it seems he still rejects it. I dont know if it is me or him....but after 2 weeks of back and forth all that has been achieved is my being very frustrated! Instead of furthering discussion, he just keeps repeating 1-liners until I submit. I keep hoping that another editor will come act as a third opinion, but it has not happened. I am going to step away for 24 hours as I am quite angry at the moment and dont want to type something disrespectful. After this cool down period, I wonder, can you tell me how I can get a neutral 3rd opinion to help avoid 1000 page disputes that end up back where they started? Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have my sympathies and understanding. I used to edit chiropractic quite a bit since I know a lot about the subject. Although QG and I share many concerns and POV on the subject, I feel the same way you do about editing alongside him. One gets nowhere. He has been written up for this behavior before but he's still editing so I stay away because it's just too frustrating. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brangifer, Thanks for your understanding :) I hold no grudge against anyone for their personal POV, provided it is not based on conscious ignorance. I personally just try to follow the evidence as best possible, and contribute to it when I can.Puhlaa (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ocaasi, I replied to you on my talk page. Also, I have a question. What is the "vandalism Threat" box at the top of your talk page? I noticed it changes... how and why? Not really my business, just curious. Puhlaa (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I uploaded it, but now someone's marked it as a possible copyright infringement. It probably is, but I honestly thought no one would care. Perhaps someone from the price-pottenger foundation can reupload it or give permission for it to be "public domain". I guess I'll email them, but I didn't want to be involved in this hassle. How silly.
Hi, sure, I will do that. I am new to Wikipedia and I started with minor changes before going to larger article writing etc. I read through the Over & Underlinking guide and correct what I've done wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalplsko (talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The idea that money is debt, sure seems like a perversion of a commodity system rather than a universal truth."
Agreed.
"I can see that if you force fiat money from the beginning, then perhaps there is something to be said, but maybe you can explain the connection."
Sorry, but I'm confused as to what you are asking with that sentence...
"From the Chartalism article, I couldn't quite grasp the necessity of deficit spending to have fiat money. It seems even in a fiat-constructed system you could find a way to create legal tender which would not represent debt."
It is perfectly possible to have a system in which the "monetary base" is composed of debt free money and everything else is debt based... but somehow the banks and politicians have contrived to make a system in which both are debt based. It is utterly insane.
By the way I have already won a few battles on the fractional reserve banking page - there are now some references to endogenous money due to my persistence.
Also by the way I am not an unreserved supporter of Austrian economics, though I have spent some time considering their ideas. I think they have a lot to offer - mixed in with some craziness.
I would invite you to take a look at the chapter "our crazy money system" in the book I am writing online here: www.goplusplus.com/book - feel free to email me directly on reissgo@gmail.com to escape this clumsy wiki communication.
I'm not sure why my edit was reverted. That section of the table displays "country of manufacture", which I interpreted to mean as the country where those vehicles were manufactured.
The Dodge Charger is built in Brampton, Ontario; the Ford Crown Victoria is assembled in St. Thomas, Ontario, the Westward G04 is built in St. Francis Xavier, Manitoba. Last time I checked, Ontario and Manitoba are both in Canada, not the United States. The Wikipedia articles on the Charger and Crown Victoria display the correct assembly location, and those articles are linked to from the NYPD article, which makes the inaccuracy even more glaring.
Furthermore, the Toyota Prius is built in Tsutsumi, Japan and the Ford Fusion hails from Hermosillo, Mexico. Both of these facts are stated clearly on the Wikipedia pages for those vehicles. I don't know why its such an issue to display it on the NYPD article.
If you think its somehow inappropriate to show where police vehicles are manufactured, than I suggest you remove that column from the table entirely, rather than showing obviously inaccurate information for no good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.159.194 (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I just thought those notices were standard. I suspect, as you probably do, that he won't be back for constructive purposes any time soon. Do you need more people at Oversight? Ocaasi (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you download the copy I placed on my wikipedia website? I assume not, since you made no acknowledgement when posting a copy-paste of the start of the article on Talk:Pseudoscience. Since you have your own copy, is it OK if I now remove the copy I placed at the disposition of others? Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the copy I made. If anybody needs to look at the article and, like you, has no university access rights, I have suggested that they ask you. Mathsci (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how you want to approach it... I think you misconstrued my intentions, or didn't realize how yours came across. Copyright really was my primary concern, then the content issue. Attribution didn't cross my mind, because I thought you didn't care about it either. If I was incorrect on that front, my mistake. Anyway, good to have had access to the version you posted, thanks for that. Not too keen on how you went about discussing the issue. Hopefully the text will help clear up the article dispute. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ocaasi. I just saw that you reverted my edit, and if you could just tell me why did that, i would probably understand. Thanks for listening, and wishes of sucess 67.80.84.213 (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok I have legit reasons for said change....gay black republican....possible definition one who is suddenly gay, not accepted by other gays so becomes republican for attention....republican party needs minority vote till after elections hence pic or web ugly dance......of said gay black republican also note said gay black republican is real person does really exist known said person since elementary school openly bashes gays and black please refer to race and sexual orientationjust thought the world should know how why and yes it is possible.....it has to be in wiki the world must know not racist, or judging but did you know.....one who knows all......i didn't unsigned comment added by Jewskin (talklinks removed10:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok dude fair enough, I did try to find a more credible source than the sun. But couldn't find anything, and the credible sources were just quoting what the sun had said. Thank you for giving me a reason, don't like it when other people just edit and delete text without saying why.
10:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I did seek page protection. Wikipedia left it in place for one month, then removed it, and now the vandalism is happening again, even after you struck out the bogus page so it couldn't be just added back on. I asked you to strike the bogus post from the page history again but you did not do that, you just removed the post to the public that the page is frequently vandalized and left me a note to "seek protection" 00:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. Was that a notification or a warning? The page was redirected to Criticism of Julian Assange and I didn't create the original; in fact, I did the move. There's plenty of civil discussion on the Criticism Of talk page. There are plenty of sources. Why is this up for Speedy? Ocaasi (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh crap, sorry this is my fault. I forgot to untick the "notify if possible" part of the TW interface, you did the move so it lists you as creator on the redirect. Please ignore :) --Errant(chat!)16:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh... having a stoopid half hr :) I blanked the notice here because I feek bad leaving a silly red hand all over the place. :) --Errant(chat!)16:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All sorted then, it is good to accept mistaken understanding through this keyboard medium, what I was annoyed about was that our , not useful but worthwhile commentary on the talkpage and all other edits vanish and we can see them unless we have admin status.... oh well, that is another thing, some silly article is created without any authority or status and then we waste our time, npov-ing the content and attempting clean up and we all know it shouldn't have been created and its creation ultimately wasted all our good faith time and time is a valuable commodity, note - better to stamp on such creations as close as possible to birth, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought AFD would have been better, particularly with the talk page content. No problem with Mr. Errant--that redirect was indeed a problem. It's always tricky when an agenda meets sources, and V starts trumping NPOV. Should have had Mr. Templar draft that piece in userspace. Good work anyway. Ocaasi (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
how is the editing going regarding the chiropractic page, particularly with the Ernst article? I find this wiki-editing process tiresome...glad to see someone is standing for objectivity. Good luck. Ernst and others have lumped any VBA post-adjustment with chiropractic. Many in his studies were performed by non-chiropractic personnel; i.e., MDs, DOs, and PTs.
Even if the 26 deaths were spot-on, after millions upon millions of adjustments over 100 years, that's an amazing safety record. Acetaminophen killed more people last month.
Chiropractic is in a holding pattern. It probably won't get better or worse until more sources weigh in through research. I gave my most reasonable interpretation visa/vis Ernst--that he has an anti-chiropractic disposition, that 26 deaths is (statistically) trivial, that they were not all by Chiropractors, that medical practices don't face the same level of scrutiny, that more research is needed, that millions of adjustments happen (presumably) without incident, etc. None of that commentary much matters unless it is published by an equally reliable source. The Wikipedia way, at least regarding medical claims is to reflect published research, particularly systematic reviews. And the most prolific systematic reviewer in this area is Ernst. So, as a default, he wins. I would like to balance the article in other ways, mentioning the widespread lay acceptance of Chiropractic, its use in professional sports, Olympics, and dance, the relatively low incidence of serious harm or mistakes compared to medicine, and the general phrasing of the article.
I'm not sold on any alternative practice. I recognize that the placebo effect alone combined with the lack of invasive side effects plus some common sense nutrition, stress, and exercise advice could cure most people. Does spinal alignment have something to do with health? I don't see how it could not. Are there vertebral subluxations which block energy or at least nervous system communication--beats me. We have nerves and they carry electricity in our spine. Energy flows are subjective for now, though anecdotally they appear to be something. I don't know if one has to do with the other.
Chiropractic is particularly tricky because it has plausible mechanisms whereas something like homeopathy in my opinion is a clear fringe counterexample. I think the state of the Chiropractic field will be resolved in a few decades, as brainscans, bodyscans, enhanced tomography, etc. reveal some of "what's happening". For now, if you have any good sources which describe Chiropractic, leave them for me here or at the Chiropractic page. The policy WP:MEDRS covers medical claims, but anything which addresses other aspects of the field follows our standard WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS policies/guidelines. Thanks for your note. Ocaasi (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
surely you do not begrudge an editor the trivial expense of 'digital text', which is behind the virtual lengthening of an informative Supporter entry??
what can be the censorial reason for deleting that pertinent information, that I placed in a 'context' for the convenience and education of all readers!!?
the webpage is about Assange, however when one mentions supporters, there is a modicum of actually salient and important information about the OTHER person, information of a kind declaring the value of the supporter; the individual is thus certified, his worthiness evidenced somewhat.
In the case of Loach, there is conspicuous value in a citation of the nature of his work, as it is directly correlated to the mission of WikiLeaks, as stated by Assange himself.
you are welcome to reply to me. I would look forward to a dialog, on these few points, myself.
i intend to restore this edit, that i provide you pasted here below:
Ken Loach, director of films notable for their social realism and markedly political themes, movies consistently of topical importance, (specially pertinent films include: Sweet Sixteen, Cathy Come Home, considerations of “homelessness”; Riff-Raff, the issue of “labour rights”; Bread and Roses, about exploitation of immigrant labourers; and The Wind That Shakes the Barley set during two events in modern history, the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil war).
Offering his contribution of £20,000 as a partial surety for Assange’s bail, [109] Loach observed, "I think the work [Assange] has done has been a public service. I think we are entitled to know the dealings of those that govern us." [110]
__________you removed pertinent information (perhaps the list of film achievements of Ken Loach could be shortened!), but when a new individual is added to the subhead "support" ("supporters" IMHO would be a better choice)--
it is pertinent to remark on germane connections between the two principals.
It seems obviously relevant to indicate some nodding acquaintance with what distinguishes one's supporters, one's notable advocates. It's rather the point to having the list--"supporters."
Loach is a recipient of many awards; he is honored in recognition of a legacy-- of refined and ethical, informed film productions, that demonstrate his thoughtful and abiding attention to, and understanding of, political and social issues. Ken Loach did earn his distinction, by his actions!
Not accidentally, and the reason i added Loach to the Assange Support list, is Loach's lifelong thematic preoccupations, that articulate political and social issues that are precisely at the heart of Assange's enterprise. Loach's work, in films, bears directly upon the objectives and aspirations Assange has defined, as being WikiLeak's raison d'etre.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hispanosuiza (talk • contribs) 16:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
oops, forgot to sign this; hispanosuiza,
Hispanosuiza (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, mate, bad things are happening at that article, but your grumble over Loach's entry is trivial. The reason for his fame and naming his films is uncalled for, it's not what Wikipedia normally does.
Perhaps worse, your long rambling posts at the TalkPage are just irritating people - in fact, much worse, they excuse quite sinister manipulation going on at that same TalkPage. We've now been told that accusing Assange of "screwing young girls" on FoxNews (ie US national television) is not notable enough for the article - but the words themselves are too offensive even to appear at the TalkPage! Liddy threatened Assange on his radio show but that's not notable because his only real fame is as a criminal - you couldn't make it up! Rush Limbaugh threatened him, there are videos of him doing so and he boasts of it on his own web-site (separate incidents, I think), but again, radio incitement (even though this is what caused the Rwanda massacres, 800,000 killed) is not notable.
There are other glaring holes in the article, look up what it says about the reaction in Australia, which is well understated in the article. Assange's lawyer tells a rally that Gilliard is a "sycophant" of the US - but nothing to tell us that "large number of MPs have spoken to The Weekend Australian to express grave concerns at the language ministers and the Prime Minister are using in relation to Mr Assange"[25].
Another glaring example for you to consider - the article says "In late 2010, Assange was in the process of completing his memoirs for publication in 2011.[55]". There is no mention that the newspaper stories reported that he was reluctantly forced to sign a book deal in order to fund his defense because contributions were cut off.[26] Not stated, but very easily understood if people are allowed to see the information is that Wikileaks (and his own legal defense) will get a lot less of Assange's attention as a direct result of the financial sanctions imposed on him. (Some sources say he could be racing a former colleague to publish, but he'll not win the race and that's only opinion, not anybody's words as we should be documenting).
Glaring example #4 - Assange's florid but well acceptable name ("Business McCarthism", or maybe "Digital McCarthyism") for what was being done to him wasn't allowed in his own article. What's he done to have his own words censored in this fashion from his own biography? Templar98 (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the respectful TalkPage discussions seem calculated to drive people off in utter frustration - a German Sunday newspaper (by Yahoo translation) quotes "ex secret service boss Peter Regli" saying of Assange: “I would not be surprised, if he suddenly victims of a car accident, of one underground-rise on the tracks to fall or at one cardiac infarct would die” The TalkPage reply calls this report "speculation" and continues "frankly, as part of the "establishment" we all find conspiracy theories along the lines of "I would not be surprised, if he suddenly victims of a car accident" completely hilarious :P"
So there we are, it's official, anything that suggests Assange's life is in serious danger is "conspiracy theory". The sub-article listing 13 threats from named people (+ 2 anonymous web-only +++ perhaps a few more to come) on his life was mysteriously deleted because it "duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject" (exact reason, CSD#10, bolded text as in original). You've been warned not to try and contribute usefully to the article, anything you do will be torn up. Templar98 (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind the talk page, it's where everyone blows off some of their ideological steam. The 'screwing young girls' bit was about as close to a WP:BLP vio as I've seen, and I made it clear in comments that it had no place in the article (and it doesn't belong on the talk page either). You misunderstand how articles work. We don't publicize trivial, shitty gossip to prove the people are being mean towards Assange, because to do so would be giving that trivial, shitty gossip a platform for the entire world. We don't do it! Imagine, your sister, accused of being a whore by some jackass in middle school. Ok, what to do (beat him up privately, beat him up in front of everyone, ignore him). For our purposes, 1 and 3 are the same, since we can't have much impact unless we act publicly. But beating him publicly means either a) refuting in front of everyone that "no, my sister is not a whore" or b) beating him up "because he said my sister was a whore". Either way, now everyone knows what the gossip was. You think we've made progress, but in fact the trivial, shitty gossip has now been spread to the entire school. We don't do punishments, we don't make connections, we don't reveal people's true motives, we're a boring fucking encyclopedia. We're really boring.
We do mention that Assange entered into the book deal as a way to find money to keep the site going, partly due to the lack of money from its traditional fundraising paths. Stop combining all of these different threads into a noose. Treat them independently. Liddy, notable but not critical. Rush, notable but not critical. Geraldo, not notable and not even worth discussing. Headers are NEUTRAL places. They are like the judges at a trial. They have no side, they oversee a debate. Assange's words can go in the paragraphs but not above them. Headers must be neutral, period. When you're in court, the trial is called 'assange vs. the state' not 'screwing young girls'. We choose language that doesn't take a side. We let the sides be presented by the lawyers. You have to read our policies! WP:NPOV explains this explicitly. So does WP:MOS#headers Read the policies...they're why this place hasn't exploded!
Someone thought a death threat was hilarious. Ok, they're either an asshole, or they think the threats are truly unrealistic. A) ignore asshole. B) take a reasonable stance that death threats can never be taken lightly.
The criticism against Assange article was a mess by our standards, but no, it shouldn't have been deleted. However, it shouldn't have been created either. It should have been drafted in your userspace (which I can show you how to do) so you can get some calm feedback about bringing articles in line with policy.
All of your suggestions are reasonable, but the implementation has not been ideal, conflicts with policy are evident, and your approach to others' motivations I think has hindered article improvement by you. It could be easier to say, "I'd like to include this. Thoughts?" Ocaasi (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure which parts to answer - but the information on Assange being forced to sign a book deal because the sanctions are hurting is something I put in.
That's what I've been saying. Half of your edits are great, so long as they don't go too far. Each of those changes (financial repercussions, terrorist/death penalty, etc. are good additions). The problem is that it started from a polemical approach and is now being incorporated into encyclopedic processes. I'm sure you're not done with your work, but I'd still recommend targeted improvements over a great crusade or correction.
Excluding concerns of Europeans, hmm... I can't comment on that with credibility. I'm an American and could be unaware of my bias. We do use primarily English sources which are UK/US heavy. It's possible we're missing some of the reactions from Germany and France, Scandinavia... but I still don't think our article has a particular slant. (That doesn't mean it's complete yet either). I mean, everything you've wanted to describe, we've added, just maybe not with the exhaustive detail or exposure-agenda you embarked on. If you're looking at the article and still thinking, where's the outrage?, I think that's probably because the outrage is in you and not the sources. Bring some sources that describe an outpouring of backlash against the calls for Assange's death, for example, and we'll incorporate some of that. It hasn't happened extensively yet, to my knowledge. Ocaasi (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You tipped me off about this, and then it became rather obvious. This is a European and Australian story, has not much to do with the US (except you've been victimised most but that hardly entitles you to coverage). Say, 30% Australian, 60% European and 10% American. Unless, of course, you properly document the hatred and threats from the US, we could let you have a bit of extra time in the limelight for that. Templar98 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Idiom check... does 'tipped me off' mean 'bothered' (as in 'ticked me off') or does it mean 'alerted' (as in 'given me a tip')? Wikipedia is supposed to have no regional bias but that's a huge challenge (see WP:Systemic bias). I think WikiLeaks and Julian Assange is a global, modern story. In that he's leaked about US military actions in Afghanistan (War Logs) and now Diplomacy (Cablegate), he's clearly put the US in the center of his story. If you add Business (Bank of America) to the list, and he's basically hit every major aspect of our hegemony. BTW, have you seen Reactions_to_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak. It's very multi-national. Not sure where you're going with this, but I still don't think any press from Australian newspapers would justify drastically more backlash coverage than we already have. The fact that the US has been 'victimised' doesn't entitle us to more coverage, but the fact that more ink has been spilled in reliable sources describing those events partly does. Ocaasi (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, bad things continue to happen at that article, and because it's the US threatening him there cannot be any mention. The section "Criticism" was created as "Threats, smears and calls for assassination" and it still contains those things. But only a tiny proportion of them, dated so it appears they only concern Cablegate. Whereas they started in June, immediately after the arrest of Bradley Manning, and Assange could no longer safely travel to the US. But rather than treat his non-appearance as evidence of his fear (there is good reason to think very justified fear), it's hived off to "Public appearances" and made to appear that he's simply unreliable.
What do you think of the latest nonsense going on at the talkpage? Nobody's supporting me, so I'll back off but not because I'm satisfied. Templar98 (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i wll not go away, meekly, leaving unkick't the provincialities of an apparent editorial claque, unwilling to discuss, to justify or modify certain of its institutionalized practices!
i like the stuff you say, and appreciate your good intentions to me, and abhor your faithfulness to a mission that has, in my view, flaws much in need of correction (or at least exposure to they may be LOOKED at, consciously) for everyone's good interests.
you do offend me with a flurry that is too casual, a fusillade of all kind of mean terms, betraying a lack perhaps of seeing something other than posing revolutionary fashionable cant in all that i say.
your conflate an assortment of ideological labels, but this betrays something i am not ready to accept--that you actually don't have a clear grasp on certain of those terms you have strung together.
I actually am trying to advance a political aspect in what i want to contribute to the wikipedia topic at hand.
one worries that there is some prima facie disqualification attached to pressing inquiries and proffering contributions of the kind i have, which are forthrightly political--that is an aspect. The items i want to defend are factually relevant, and merit some rational discussion--call it debate--on their merits, but more for the end of improving the editorial pre-disposition, for what may be a worthy "encyclopedia" as you will have it.
I went to some length to open a refined inquiry, that i most recently put in words to Temblar98, that i copy here, hoping you won't find this merely tedious.
Ocassi, believe me, i do not discount your kindness, in replying at all, to me.
in a reply to his note, that admonished me, as you have, with friendly intentions i think; in medias res, wrote i, to Temblar,
". . . May i ask you to
play along with me, be a partner to my theatricks, rhetorical the while, and let my vigorous assertions seem those of The Hypothetical Contributor.
Here i say, i am indifferent to the discussion-talk 'gang' (some obscure structural flow chart--does it include an eminence gris--flickers vaguely perceptual) that i've called a cabal, a coterie of "group-think".
My interest is in making legitimate FACTual contributions, that have political significance and relevance, with an end of seeing a record available to the theoretical wiki reader who may be served with information upon which she (being so moved) may ACT or respond, productively, other than entering a mill of endless disputations from wiki-insiders, that gang guarding the encyclopedic set of rules, which when inflicted on me as the excuse to eliminate my contributions, always seem to beg the question!!!
ironically, this question:
"in the generally unchallenged application (invocation, it would seem sometimes) of the arcane WP 'rules' (boilerplate unspecific, yet invoked as authoritative guidance, by the 'gang')
isn't there a NPOV! kind of covert orthodoxy being given primacy, over real deliberations of "content" ?? The Talk pages, as have affected me, in my brief times needing to try to breathe there, have produced the impression of (a structure, i intuit vaguely) a cabal,
those 'experts' whose discussions treat with a cavalier and casual consideration, whatever isn't immediately recognizable to them as Orthodox, institutionally OK, for having survived their straining it (the candidate contribution, or edit, that is) thru their WP rules machine (which they know inside and out, and only they operate its handles!). After all, it was headed to peremptory tossing-out!
I am now going to make remarks that apply to a category of wikipage topics and entries--the category that is inherently political in nature, as distinct from wikipages that are entries and topics of the Sciences. The level of expertise and factual information on wikipages in this latter category i think is demonstrably of higher quality and validity than pages in the arena that is our concern here, in the Assange entry and topic.
This structural management, i.e., admissibility of content, on certain topics, being determined by fallible critics and judges, many of whom appear to be actually quite unlearned, not to say ignorant, upon contemporary politicical history or theory, unacquainted generally with a grasp of current events, specially if you throw in "economics" as a dynamic concern (file under category 'globalization'), would seem to be a contrivance to ensure often censorial results. You could even say that the arbiters, the WP gang, are rather carrying off a "self-censoring" or editing,
particularly if they are letting appear on the public wikipages only such vetted information as satisfies their WP rules and suchlike editorial protocols—as would make it, and keep it, antiseptic, QED.
Wouldn't want an encyclopedia to morph into . . . something dangerous, more dangerous than ‘rules’ have contemplated?
when the Rules come before and outweigh deliberations of specific texts, one shd take care that a pragmatic orderly system isn't approaching a stasis--as regards its own self-awareness, its capacity to be 'reflective'. Then conditions are ripe for 'institutionalized' phenomena to flourish--
institutions do not want to look, critically, as their structural rules, as long as they happily see their machine apparently working OK.
in the case more sinister, the banksters, their CEOs don't want others to look at their orchestration of rules, lest they be found wanting, or perhaps, undemocratic . . . or,
well, simply, biased . . . now what kind of encyclopedia would that be!?
Hispanosuiza (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
staying around 2
No capital letters, not normally formatted paragraphs, no attempt at reasonable length, no apparent attempt at having read arguments explaining Wikipedia's principles (see the Links) section at the top of this page for starters. In short, too much criticism with too little knowledge. Not the knowledge you know, of course, which is probably ample, but the knowledge you don't know, which about this community is larger than you realize. Don't criticize a mere outcome until you understand the reasons behind it. Questions welcome, further diatribes not please.
You wrote: "I actually am trying to advance a political aspect in what i want to contribute to the wikipedia topic at hand." This is the problem, in a nutshell. Read WP:NPOV, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOR, and you'll maybe understand. You think our rules have induced a lack of reflection, but they are actually the descriptive best practices of 10 years of empirical editing. The rules work most of the time, that's why we keep them. This is a fairly mature community, and though not perfect by any means, 90% of people who really struggle with policy are just wrong. You have not made the case that you're in the 10%. Mr. Loach is not that important to Julian Assange. Mr. Loach's work has a relevance to Assange which you have synthesized rather than provided from sources (see WP:SYNTH). You want to 'make' the point; we only summarize points others have made. If that doesn't make sense, you don't understand that encyclopedias are not collections of insights and essays. Go away now, before your soul dies in the inevitable bowing to pre-existing knowledge.
And not responding to the one person who showed an interest, which was me .... I think that's what's called a troll. Thanks for collapsing his rubbish when it appeared on my TalkPage. Templar98 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
unsurprisingly, i do think the 7 Jan Subpoena item is relevant under "Assange" WL topic.
how disengenous will some people be? --pretending the DOJ subpoena isn't about Assange, et al.
this isn't "about Assange"? To repeat myself, if that Subpoena "isn't about Assange" i suggest we should bend, or even relax, such the rule, that effectively is excavating an "encyclopedic" lacuna--
right in the middle of ongoing chronological developments, that are news explicitly about Assange. An anxious antisepticism, as a kind of unexamined WL policy orthodoxy surely ought to be relaxed!
ocassi, obviously you're a good, and smart man. maybe you're passing slow to move things along, and i misjudge your "subtlety".
You won't say the 7 Jan subpoena note has a place, anywhere, inside the Assange page? Drat, makes me so mad . . . i could spit.
oh! on fastidious or punctilious (pees and queues, etymologically puissant, ahem!)
Concerns for CAPS, thrice underlined!
i have some ten years or so of copyediting under my belt--i do book design and layout, and markup. but it's convenient for my fast 'touch'typing to dismiss with it, in notes among co-conspirators or friends. i'm not trying to beatnik you into an eecummings trip.
Pardon, if in my futile efforts to place a newsy item on a public WL page, i've overlooked its august formal 'styles' in play.
my good regards, sir.
hispanosuiza
Hispanosuiza (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'throwaway lines' are hoisted up; that the vulgar may salute ==
in today's Salon, this one:
"Palin aide Rebecca Mansour waxes defensive in an interview with Tammy Bruce:
We have nothing whatsoever to do with this. We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you'd see on maps . . . [It was] a surveyor's symbol. "
a surveyor's symbol. Magic!! see, they turned one, into another--
i love that!
Take that line the next step, and you may accept that,
the DOJ subpoena is / not "about" Assange!
Rhetoric! put forth with a straight face,
now that's scarey!!
Thanks for the uTube link to the WikiLeaks Rebels; i won't have to wait for it to show up on the History channel now!
i'm about to take the path, conceding to your staunch defense, of the Assange-page copy being restricted under the gang's formal criteria for "encyclopedia."
It will be evident i do have an agenda, that is 'truthful' and relies on 'facts.' So i press rather hard, hoping that your place, here, may serve as a forum--not a soapbox--
where,
all the while, relevant and topical discourse "about Assange" might be set legitimately--that is, having a rightful place--
to reach out to a broad and needful audience.
I have a notion a readership predisposed to political themes, aware and sensitive to nuanced realpolitik, might profitably appeal to Wikipages of a category that includes the Assange article.
That may not be so.
In any case, i will back off from pressing harder, from conjurations,
trying to make cross-hairs of mere surveyors' symbols.
chow, man.
hisp-sp-sp-p-p-
Hispanosuiza (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No mission, no agenda, no crystal ball, WP:NOTAFORUM. You're trying to attack hypocrisy in the media, in politics--get a blog. If you have an agenda, get a non-profit. Wikipedia is not it. You're trying to prevent deaths and improve real world outcomes. That happens today. Wikipedia can only see up to yesterday. It won't know about your grand scheme or failure to enact it until it's already over tomorrow. You're not going to succeed here until you stop synthesizing connections everywhere sources have not made them, and relating them to articles they are not explicitly about. Some missions are worth failing at: decide whether that is changing the world (so you can write an encyclopedia) or failing at encyclopedia so you can go change the world (but not trying to do it here, where it's wasted). Ocaasi (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not unsympathetic to utilitarian arguments for animal research, if there's a case to be made. But I can't fathom people just ignoring or denying the experience of animals. Ocaasi (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who deny any experience at all exists. Even what you're experiencing now. Why would you be surprised by that? Just saw the remark on her(?) talk page and it sounded interesting. Egg Centric (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for a good philosophical mind-fuck, and the notion that experience doesn't exist is about as good as it gets. But we have to take some benchmark, and the 'reality' of own experience seems to be just about as close as we can get. Then again, I also like scientific approaches that test specific outcomes and can be performed and repeated by multiple testers. I think the more important lens to look at experience in this particualr context is as a psychological construct (perception) mediated by nuts and bolts biological systems (sensation). People don't just 'experience' separate from their senses. And their senses operate through nerve channels that interface with hormones and neurotransmitters, all triggered by various receptors. We can't say for sure that experience exists, but we can surely say that my experience feels like it exists, and we can show that sensation which leads to any individual's experience is not separate from their body's design, and we can show that animals share essential components of that design... so I think we can reasonably say (or at least not be able to falsify) that animals are in fact experiencing what we call pain. They certainly can act like they are. For good dissections of the design of human experience, see Raymond Kurzweil's book, The Singularity is Near. Ocaasi (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'll respond to that tomorrow, now MUST sleep. But re: the other thing, I agree it would normally be unacceptable, but it was being used in an ironic sense - the humour came from the inappropriateness of it. Rather like The Office, for example. Egg Centric (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. re: other thing, comments that are self-referentially inappropriate, i.e. funny because they are so wrong, and which happen to address another person, are easy to mistake for actual meanness in any medium, but especially online. If you want to be careful you might add a <sarcasm> tag, but I think you're in tricky territory. I'd place such things elsewhere. Ocaasi (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to edit the chiropractic page to include conclusions on 2 large scale studies published in high-end medical journals (SPINE and the Journal of Rheumatology). The SPINE article compared the risk of stroke when patients went to chiropractors and were manipulated and another group went to their Primary Care Physician and did not get manipulation. Both groups had the same risk of VBA stroke. This is a great article that documents the safety of manipulation. The Journal of Rheumatology article compared various approaches to treating neck pain, neck pain with headaches and neck pain with arm pain. This research study compared prescription drugs, modalities, physical therapy and manipulation. The conclusion was that the only group that had STRONG EVIDENCE OF BENEFIT was the manipulation/mobilization in combination with stretching/strengthening exercises. I also put a note in that physical therapy techniques are within the scope of practice of chiropractors in most states. Please let me know how to properly get this side of the story published on Wikipedia. This is a great resource but people need to know what some of the more respected medical journals have concluded. A conclusion that the risk of death by far outweighs the benefit is quite bias. Even to that authors own conclusion, there have been less than 30 deaths attributed to manipulation. Of those stated, many were from medical doctors or physiotherapists, one was from a martial artist and another from a massage therapist that should not have been manipulating to begin with. Ernst is bias against chiropractors but I guess his voice should still be heard. However, the more credible research that has actually evaluated the safety and benefits of manipulation should also be heard. Sorry for the long message. I just don't know what information you need.
Thanks
Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueter112 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you are contributing to talk in the pseudoscience article, most recently as regards self deception in thinking ones' pseudoscience is really science, maybe with no intent to impress the public, only oneself. My muliple RS edits in the bad faith article were deleted as "too much at one time by one editor", or something like that. But no one else seems to be making any positive edits at all. I undid the revert regarding my edits in the lede, but kept the revert as to the many new sections I started, moving the sections content to the talk page for discussion. I am proposing a bad faith in science (pseudoscience) section for that article. Perhaps if you have time, you could contribute to the bad faith article. Maybe by WP:bolding in a science section from here[27]. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ocaasi - I wanted to personally thank you for all your help during the fundraiser. We appreciate the two appeals you wrote for the campaign, the hundreds of messages you submitted and left feedback on, and the the time you put in answering questions on talk pages. We couldn't have done it without you. Thanks again - Deniz (WMF) (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ocaasi,
Have you had a chance to read the Journal of Rheumatology article I tried to add as a reference on the chiropractic page? I don't know who quackguru is but I have a feeling from the name that there is at least a hint of bias. The article by Ernst is the only article (with multiple flaws) that I know that has ever even stated that the risk by far outweighs the benefits. Most of the articles I have seen state that manipulation (which is only one part of chiropractic) is at least as effective and most conclude that manipulation used with a multimodal approach such as with exercise therapy has a synergistic effect and is by far safer than OTC meds, NSAID's and prescription medications in the long term. Think about it, less than 30 deaths after billions of treatments over 100 years is surely considered extremely safe. I contacted the American Chriopractic Association. They stated that they have already tried to provide information about scope of practice to Wikipedia but they are having troubles with posting to the page also. If there is ever a source that should be considered respectable to Wikipedia, it should be the American Chiropractic Association (the chiropractic equivalent to the American Medical Association). Please let me know what I need to do to get the more positive and consistent research to post to this page. I am a little suprised at how difficult this is. I have peer reviewed medical research and the American Chiropractic Association trying to provide proof that the information I presented was accurate. I am not sure what else I can do. Please forgive my ignorance. I am new to this site and I am still learning the rules.
Please read the section under STRONG EVIDENCE OF BENEFIT. The only treatment that has strong evidence of benefit for long-term effect was manipulation/mobilization in combination with exercise therapy (both of which are what chiropractors do to help patients with neck pain). This should at least counter the quotes by one source that concluded that the risk of death by far outweighs the benefit. It appears that Wikipedia is stuck on this manipulation only aspect of chiropractic. This Journal Article basically discusses the majority of treatments offered by chiropractors (traction, exercise therapy, ultrasound, electric muscle stimulation, T.E.N.S., cold laser therapy, traction, ergonomic suggestions and home therapy advise). I contacted the ACA and asked them to provide you with documentation supporting the multimodal aspect of chiropractic care in most states. This needs to be in the beginning of the page. The general public that is searching for chiropractic information needs to know what chiropractors do. Chiropractic is way more than manipulation. Please let me know what more you need. I will have the ACA send the specific data. Thanks, Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueter112 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in question here, the 'risk' involves specifically "spinal manipulation to the neck". We get that part right. The rheumatology can't counter the risk claims, because it doesn't make any risk claim. It might be able to address Effectiveness, like I said. Improving the scope of actual chiropractic treatments (traction, exercise, ultrasound, etc...) is something we should do but we need sources for. Do you have any? The ACA is a significant organization, but their opinion on the research does not override actual studies which say otherwise. Once the ACA performs a peer-reviewed systematic analysis of research and publishes it in a reputable journal with different conclusions then we can use it directly. Until then, basically all we can say is that Chiropractic organizations dispute the findings. Ocaasi (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help more with bad faith article re mathematical reaslism?
Ocaasi, I noticed you edit on Phil of Sci related articles, and you have edited the bad faith article. So maybe you were reading mathematical philosophy stuff about ten years ago, too, where “bad faith” arises in a very important and “ethics busting” way. I thought maybe you might be able to help me come up with an understandable sentence or two about this. While “I do not no not a thing” about technical arguments in mathematical realism involving Mackie’s error theory of mathematical realism as it applies to ethics, I am not an expert by any means. About ten years ago, I recall that mathematical philosopher Crispin Wright complained that J. L. Mackie's view on mathematical realism relegates ALL discourse on eithics to ONLY be about “bad faith”, a very restricted ethics indeed. A similar, but less formalized, discussion occured between analytic philosopher of ethics Philippa Foot and Fregean ontology's Alonzo Church about "bad faith", to which I was a witness, and the discussion made my head spin at that time. How can these ideas be explained in plain English, and in only a sentence or two? You can respond at the talk page of bad faith, where I am copying this request. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will post the same question at Arthur Rubin's talk page. Incidentally, regarding your calling my life "paripatatic", I have wondered to Wiki, too, and I can get around because I have four times as many days between my birthdays as most people, since I moved my birthday to Feb 29. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask Egyptian Liberal about this, and then he sent me the link that said they were officially NOT taking part. But wed need more sources for that. And children were also taking part (i believe its mentioned in the timeline somewhere)
someone else did, i tried restoring it. sometime theses things take to show back up.
yeah i generally try in the article mainspace but i let it slip on the talk page sometimes ;)
Its in the hope that eventually it will show up (mostly from al jazeera itself) but with the breaking nature it wont be immediate.(Lihaas (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
On the Twelfth day of Wikmas, Jimbo gave to we... 12 templates tagging, 11 bluelinks piping, 10 prods deleting, 9 bots reverting, 8 !votes affirming, 7 admins mopping, 6 stubs creating, 5 BLPs, 4 copyvios, 3 talkbacks, 2 cofounders, and success, but still not in theory...
Merry, if that's your thing. General cheer, otherwise.Happy 10th Wikipedia! 02:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
hi. i see your "autoed" edit on "2011 egypt protests" article changed the "—" stylings to the underlying long emdash. is the use of code deprecated or discouraged in wikipedia? for editors "of a certain age" (and especially when editing at different magnifications), the emdash, endash and hyphen in the edit field all look QUITE similar. regards. (p.s. i can't seem to master the "no wiki" code for this. sorry).--108.14.100.42 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ocaasi, first of all good effort on you part on monitoring such an important and wide subject. However I have a comment on your following edit [29]. In my opinion this summary does not best represent the main point of the Christian Religious institution's response on the protest. You have deleted the official stand of the church and the pope's comment, while leaving a "partial" reaction on this stand (Rafiq Habib comment). This summary is not fair and do not convey the main massage of the Religious institution. So, please review the matter and I suggest restoring the whole paragraph since it is not long any way. Regards. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a clarification to your questions. I answered them in my talk page to keep the discusion in one place. Let me know if this clarifies the issue. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some have raised the issue of the Egyptian protests article taking longer for some users to load. What is Wikipedia policy on collapsibility of a References section? I seem to remember having read that Wikipedia guidelines frown on that, but is there a place that discusses the whys of this? Considering that there are 270 refs, or over 1/3 of the pages, it would be helpful for those users if there were a way that the section would open when one clicks on a ref in the text, or upon scrolling down to that section of the article. In an unfolding story of such delicacy, it is vital for the legitimacy of the article for it to be identifiably well-sourced, but it it seems equally vital that depiction of such sourcing not make it inhibitive to access the article for users on slower connections. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried doing that because I found some articles where it was done and it looked really nifty. Boy did I get in trouble! It's expressly written here not to use scrolling lists. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both! I wonder if either of you would know of a Wikipedian whose area of expertise is programming, that they might devise a collapsible box that will register when the page is printed or copied, whether or not it is opened, yet remains collapsed upon initial loading of the page. It's not remotely the sort of thing I know how to do, but it seems as though once you have the gist of the problem, the way forward is to try and craft a solution, not to maintain a limiting status quo. Is there a suggestion box-type page for programmers here? I realize they might not be able to whip it up in a week, but to get minds rolling on solving that problem would be a great step forward. Thanks again, Abrazame (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I don't know how relevant it is, but someone at Talk:Pain said that replacing (~100) citation templates with manually formatted citations halved the loading time. Someone else has also said that the {{vcite journal}} family is much faster than the more commonly used {{cite}} family. While changes to spare the WMF servers are generally frowned on, changes that plainly speed things up from the perspective of the end-user are one of the authorized reasons for changes.
You will want to start a discussion at the article in question to obtain "advance proof" of consensus for any such change, but these two options give you choices that speed loading time without reducing WP:ACCESS for some of our readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you've been keeping a low profile on the egyptian protests articles. was nice having your level-headedness on the project. (fyi: you probably won't recognize this IP number; mine changes with some frequency. my edit summaries usually read "tidy"; primarily citation formatting.)
The Committee to Protect Journalists also said Wednesday that Egyptian authorities have shut down the websites of two popular independent newspapers, Al-Dustour and El-Badil. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[[:File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg|thumb|A post mortem image of Khaled Saeed's corpse in the morgue]]
I have a question for you. The above picture was deleted but since then people have had a different opinion about the subject. does it matter or not??? Because I think if put up for a vote, the outcome will be different. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's too much to have out in the open. It's not to censor but to permit the reading of everything else. Link it in the external links or maybe add it in a hidden box. Ocaasi (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know its need to go on the talk page of the article but I have learned during my time on wiki that ppl tend be more open to listen to different point of view when talk to directly. if they cont. to disagree I ask them then to take it to the talk page. but I understand whta you have pointed out -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion on the discussed issue. The Background used to have so many extra info that was not related (or loosely related) to the protests. In my opinion there is a difference between a "background on the protests" and a "background on Egypt". Believe me, there is a lot more than what the background includes to write about Egypt's situations before the protests. But we must be concise and selective of the most relevant ones. Regards. --Osa osa 5 (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hua Chunhui 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Ironholds (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree it was premature, but also not opposed to revolution. even in the discussion there was only 1 mention of the current incarnation and was randomly picked. what i say is it should be the non proper noun and MSO standard 2011 Egyptian revolution. also for the itnernational page see talk, its purposely not revolution b/c of the scope mentioned there.Lihaas (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to move it to the non proper noun. I don't understand having the international page be different. How could protests be a different scope than revolution; are you really only describing international reactions to the marches themselves and not to the changes in governance? Ocaasi (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you.
thats also precidely the point. it is NOT the post-ouster reactions (which we had in tunisia as a seperate section (but on the same page since its small( because the page is 100k+ without the post-ouster reactions, hence i suggested add that to a seperate page. i also changed the first sentence on this page to show its up to feb 10.Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but we need to have the post-ouster reactions there too. Otherwise we're cutting the article up into ridiculously small pieces. The protests/revolution are one and the same, and the reactions have to be comprehensive. If the article is too long, it probably just needs to be edited for summary, and maybe without so many flags! Ocaasi (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i was thinking a split off fromt he main with all the post-revolution info (and there is a lot incl. reactions_ as that too is about 200k?
I think I just took the lord's name in vain. Um, sure i'll take a look. If you get bored, chime in at the timeline/split proposal on Egypt Revolution. If we can chop the article in two, it might have a chance at getting cleaned up as well. Ocaasi (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but also i think its easily against the current incarnation. the real debate is arab world vs. ME and NA. (currently with the latter, though im with the former.) (hows that for defending consensus)--Lihaas (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this edit where you add quote marks. They aren't normally necessary. Read this:
"...or replace the unacceptable blank space with an acceptable symbol such as an underscore or a hyphen (e.g., <ref name=name_more/> or <ref name=name-more/>), thus eliminating the need for quotation marks." Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes
Let me phrase that more evasively... do they do any harm? Just let me know if this is something that needs to be tweaked or if we can chalk it up to an unnecessary but tolerable style difference. Ocaasi (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes , it is common practice to notify involved parties of disputes related to their editing on their talk page, not an article talk page. I am surprised that you of all people, would engage in such blatant violation of WP:Talk. Please undo yourself. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for criticism at Bad faith. I had left it for other pursuits, and came back to try to address your points about general use, but did not know how at first. Then I started working on the theology section, which I had purposely ignored as boring, trying to address the article from a historical perspective. After finding lots of stuff there, I looked up an old Webster's dictionary to see how bad faith was defined for general use 100 years ago. I discovered that the theological ideas on it directly bore on how it was used then, and bore on your general use now point. I should have realized that christian theology shaped the English language. I don't know how objectively good my write up is, but it now makes sense to me where all the specialized uses came from (like loyalty, double minded self deception, etc.) And I at least started a general use section by using a thesaurus, in the order synonyms ocurred, and it well matched the theoligical development (which is roughly equivalent to historical development). This serves as a good leade up to, and brings cohesion to, the various specialized uses, which kind of seemed like random independent developments without the historical context and general use contest. In general (acually always), when I get criticism from other editors, I have either totally off base, or the article improves greatly. So keep critiquing. Thanks. PPdd (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know if you've been keeping tabs, but BruceGrubb has been making a number of the same edits that I has been reverted in the past, as well as started up (or restarted) noticeboard discussions here and here. I was hoping for some outside opinion as I am just repeating myself over and over and you have provided valuable input on the talk page in the past. Thanks for the consideration. Yobol (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section was intended to be in the epilepsy section specifically because Anonymous members suggested that the epilepsy forum hacking was a false flag operation carried out by the Church of Scientology. In those circumstances, I thought that it was worth pointing out that the Scientology Church has a long and storied history of attempting to similarly frame such opponents, so such an accusation might be worth listening to.
Also, I'm a bit leery of including the "accused of" part. After all, these are well-documented events confirmed by Church memos seized by the FBI, it seems to be granting undue weight to the Church; there aren't even Church response sections on the articles in question, and the Church has been very reluctant to comment on similar events (see Operation Snow White.) Seleucus (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question does mention the accusation (Paragraph starting with "in turn..."), which I thought was enough, though I wasn't the one who added it. It also seems like the attack and its relation was a really poorly reported event - Google news finds only 26 results in question, the vast majority of which are inaccessible, irrelevant to the topic, or unreliable.[1] So perhaps the section in general has undue weight granted to it. Seleucus (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was mention above and honestly we dont need more confusing then we already have. Things are interesting right now in Egypt, Hope it turns ok fro everyone here. I am in Tahrir as I am typing this right now -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Harvard book on hiding TCM cannibalism and other such "dirty secrets"
Thanks for the suggestion that I first do drafts on my user-subpage (or equivalently, at a sandbox). There is what is known as "sympathetic magic" that half of TCM is based on, related to the famous historic quotatoin "to master TCM is to master metaphor", e.g., penis cures impotence, human parts cure human parts, bones cure arthritis problems, qi unblockers cure constipation, blood unblockers sure menstrual cramps, etc. The other half is based on using toxics as medicines, with a belief that the more toxic, the better the medicine, so [[aconite, the "Queen of Poisons", is known in TCM as the "King of herbs". The third half is based on pure queckery, being deliberatelyoccult and bizzarre, so as to appear to have esoteric knowledge, as repeatedly pointed out by [[]].
If you are interested in TCM, an interesting book recently came out of Harvard, about how TCM managed to hide its dirty little family secret, Cannibalism, related to "to master TCM is to master metaphor". The monkey and the inkpot: natural history and its transformations in early China by Carla Suzan Nappi [30]
It sounds fascinating, and would make good additions to the article as long as we just share those aspects, histories, and insights. As long as info isn't used to 'prove' something, and instead the info is used to make a good article, I think we should add all of it. It's also always important to distinguish traditional versus current practices, regional differences, and the different view which practitioners hold of their own profession versus that outsiders do. It's even useful to add the perspective of how the field is perceived by the general public, and how the profession markets itself to them. All interesting aspects. I don't think I'll pick up that book right now, but thanks for passing along the recommendation. Also very neat that you are involved in that side of botany. I think there's much to learn from plants in a purely chemical way. Interesting the way that psychosomatic aspects are fused with natural pharmacology. Ocaasi (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it is in current use and is already in the medicines section, some is purely historical for the addition to the "history" section, and some relates to a new section I am writing about criticism. There is a huge amount of literature on crticism, especially by famous Chinese writers and commentators beginning over a hundred years ago. Whole famous Chinese novels were written about quackery, supersittion, and harvesting body parts of criminals and cannibalism.
On another matter, yesterday, Ludwigs2 responded to an army of Socks and Meats who came in to vandalize the article (5 accounts were permanently shut down) and he essentially pre-declared a coming edit war he would start with a massive revert. He just started it, deleting all of the critical and scientific info in the lead with his own NRS opinion. It was more like vandalism than edit warring. He just got finished being blocked a couple of days ago for this elsewhere. Do you have any suggestions, and would you mind watching me to make sure I diffuse the situation, and not escalate it, while preserving the integrity of the now fully RS article, which was almost completely NRS when I first came to it? Another problem is Luwigs2 knows nothing at all about the subject, e.g., once arguing for his multiple deletions of my addition of a "medicines" section that they were peripheral to the TCM article and UNDUE should not be included. PPdd (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since your tag, there have been some adjustments to the article, including by the WikiProject Philosophy reviewer. I just added sections on hypochondria and truth values. Do you have any specific suggestions as to how to further improve it? General suggestions? PPdd (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In looking for RS @ TCM, I developed an algorithm to pull any unavailiable article or book up, e.g., instead of the google books snippet, I can get as much as I want. I can also produce unavailable for preview pages at google books. I have not yet programmed it, and am just doing it by hand, like doing long division. I am concerned about copyright violations if I post it on talk pages, not to mention in articles. Comments? Suggestions who I might ask? PPdd (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about your algorithm. In fact, rule number one of hacking is never talk about your algorithm! Seriously, it's possible you had hard copies of the book so it doesn't matter how you got to the text. WP:COPYRIGHT does apply to talk pages, however, so you should only use as much copyrighted text as is necessary for Fair Use, namely our important but limited educational discussion of the topics. You can post a few paragraphs at most, never a whole chapter. It's better to link to sources if you can, so Wikipedia isn't the host of the material. That said, if you link to a hacked copyrighted online document, it's considered contributory copyright infringement, and also a problem. So you can use your clever gizmo, and you can even type portions of it up or copy and paste them to talk pages, but you can not link to something that others could not have legally accessed on their own. Any questions can be directed to Wikipedia talk:Copyright but I doubt you'll get a different answer from them. Ocaasi (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't know that about hacking. I had not thought about it as hacking, never having computer hacked before. I did, however, teach an underground class in hacking at Caltech, literally underground, in this system of steam ducts that have tunnels underground. I had heard about them and as an avid (but amateur) spelunker, had to see them. I collect antique clothing and dress pretty weird, and I arrived on “alumni donor” day. The first thing I did was seek out a geologist related to one of my inventions I call “hyper-nano-chemical structures”, related to pack rat nest structure, and involving what I discovered to be not only hydrophobic, but also hydro’’phyllic’’ epicuticular wax of Dudleya pulverulenta (which also has the highest UV reflectivity of any biological substance known. (My entre was as a xerophytic field botanist.) “Wax” is not really defined, but the geologist was studying waxes because they are insoluble and do not permit oxygen through, anything in them is somewhat preserved in the geological record. When I walked into the USGS office across the street, about a related geo idea of mine involving printing 3-D topo maps with the CAD cutter at Cal Poly, everyone went down on their knees and bowed to me like I was a god. When I asked what was up, I was told that Richter (scale) wore two ties, and I always wear two ties. I then went to see a physicist who studies the mathematical films on soap bubbles, and the progresseion causing the “psychedelic”, “oil on water” pattern on them. I had a third invention regarding chaparral fire prevention that required foam with soap bubbles to fill the intersticial space of the tangle of stems with sclerophyllic leaves containgn volatile-organic-compounds (VOC's) in chaparral plants that makes them so flammable, kind of like napalm. I was doing mathematical fractal compaction of bubbles stuff, i.e., how what distribution of sizes is best for the compacting bubbles. Then I went to check out the tunnels. Meanwhile, several people had called the cops reporting a “strangely dressed man”. When I got to the undergrad dorm where the “spelunkers” lived, the undergrad in charge of keeping the dorm clean (it is a pig sty, Blacker House, or something like that) was trying to figure out how to clean the filthy carpets. That’s when I thought of teaching the hacking class. I suggested he use my soap foam idea, and combining it with the steam in the tunnels, and thus I would steam-"Clean out the Augean stables”, just like Hercules (I am very competitive. I also came up with an idea to build a giant tessla coil on the mountain peak I own above SF bay to compete with Zeus, met the guy who built the biggest one in Australia, etc., ... my band's warehouse burned down, ... etc. And I hired the top math undergrad out of MIT to build the “Hammer of Thor” out of osmium for a comic convention. But those are other stories.) Then I got the hacking idea, to release the steam en masse during the next year’s alumni donor event. Meanwhile, the cops were in contact with the undergrad (a sophomore bio student) and a graduating senior in math who was in charge of the secret tunnel access, both of whom were told to keep me there distracted, which is not hard to do, since I never shut up, so they don’t even have to do anything except to fake laughing at my jokes at the right time. The math undergrad’s girlfriend showed up and challenged me and my stories (like everyone else) and said, “if you’re a real "mathematician", then come up with an application of general relativity” (she was another undergrad in cosmology, and at caltech, the math and physics dept are combined. I call their mathematiciaqns "closet physicists"). I looked at her cell phone and pointed out gravity with gesture, pointed up from phone to satellites, and said "time adjust". I said nothing else. Then she was quiet for a bit, her eyes widened, and she declared that my stories were true! She got it without me explaining any further (ct has some smart undergrads). Without me saying anything, she turned and explained to the others who were gathering around like the circus was in town (it was, a one-man show). I had just read Jonathan Weiner’s Time, Love, Memory: A Great Biologist and His Quest for the Origins of Behavior, and was feeling very competitive with Seymour Benzer’s rep as eccentric, and declared him to be an amateur eccentric. I said “what’s the difference between a weirdo and a kook? … … I am not weirdo.” All laughed. They started showing of their "freaks" to me, like the kid who could do a rubik cube faster than anyone, etc. Then the cops showed up and I had to play with them next. Fortunately, I had the receipt of a big donation I had just given at the alumni event (I am not an alum there). It ended with me partnering with a CS prof to program metaphors, the cops driving me around on their electric golf carts, and my dating a prof there. In the hacking class, I taught that hacking is historically not about computers, and only light weights use computers to hack. Also, that hacking is NEVER vandalism, and the best hacks are on yourself if you are any good, because hacking anyone else is beneath you if you are the best. I pointed to the book Nightworks which Kristof Koch’s post doc had given me as a birthday gift, cows on buildings, etc. My definition of hacking was a clever and brief solution to a knotty problem… that served a good social function. I improvised that Aristotle’s student, Alexander something, cut the Gordian knot instead of stufying algebraic topology to get to knot theory etc., with a “hack”, a clever and brief and funny solution to a knotty problem. (Someone else probably already came up with that educational joke before me, but maybe I was the first.) When I was a 14 year old runaway living on the street, I was “adopted” by Einstein’s partner, Ernst Straus. Straus told me that he and logician Donald Kalish once organized a group of Nobel, Pulitzer, etc.-types to sit in the front row when Ronald Reagan or someone gave the Shah of Iran an honorary doctorate, or something like that, and just as it was handed, everyone got up and walked out. That was an example of a good hack by my definition. Well, that’s the prologue to my hacking story. The math undergrad ended up working for me reifying my whacky inventions, like a barber shop pole illusion for sound that speeds up forever based on Indian table tin tal structure, etc., and the bio student doing my bio inventions, etc. And that Caltech prof I started dating that day left her man, the chair of the math/physics dept at ct, and he committed suicide last year. If you got this far, you were probably expecting a comedy, not a a tragedy. :( Wow, they make strong coffee at this Starbucks, or you probably already guessed that! PPdd (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(See the bottom TCM talk section.) If I happen to have connections to a TCM expert associated with Princeton/Harvard/Stanford, and I ask her to start editing the TCM article, not knowing what she will do in her edits, would that be WP:MEAT? Or would IAR apply since it would so much improve WP in the TCM article? PPdd (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppetry is a derogatory term which describes inappropriate off-wiki canvasing designed to artificially create a consensus by flooding discussions, or bring in people with a particular point of view, or something else sinister. There is no policy prohibition against appropriate off-wiki canvassing, still a bit of an oxymoron, but you get the point. Wikipedia operates on collaboration at its core, and there is nothing wrong with asking anyone to come and join us, especially in their area of expertise. You should, fairly, let other editors know about this, particularly if it impacts an ongoing debate. You should also help your friend understand the difference between expert opinion and WP:RS as well as our WP:COI policy (which I don't find that useful as policy but it offers good general advice anyway). Ultimately, there is nothing you can do wrong on Wikipedia as long as it doesn't harm the community and does create a better encyclopedia. Invite! Ocaasi (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "invite!" Another question. Being "double minded" myself, as I wrote that last ambiguity, my other mind was thinking. He (I) thought about how I usually turn institutions on their head and get kicked out of them, but I am not doing that at WP because I am in recuperation and am using WP to kill time, so I am not really doing anything but reliving the lives of others and recording them (ever see Tarkovsky's (Lem's) Solaris?). Then he told me a joke, that "encyclopedists are like vampires, feeding off the lives of others". Its a stupid wiki-aimed witicism, but he was wondering if there is a place with such, that only editors would possibly understand (sort of like WP:BJAODN)?. (PS- The TCM person I had in mind is not a friend, but an aquaintance of a friend.) PPdd (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that one. You could try WP:HUMOR or put it on your userpage as a quote. BJAODN is generally for on-wiki comments that happen in an interaction or edit, but you could certainly look there. Friend...acquaintance... whatever... more the merrier, so long as they clean up after themselves and bring beverages. Ocaasi (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about beverages, but is the best way to clean up after myself to use the delete button, a strikeout, an apology, or to put my signature at the top of a comment, so you don't have to get to the end of it to know you didn't want to read it? PPdd (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat at all, I just got excited that the discussion had been closed, and maybe common copyright-sense had prevailed. Oh well, back to the grindstone. Cheers, Ocaasi (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even that. It's IDIDNTREADTHESOURCES. Any reasonable person would see this disgusting image and think it belongs nowhere near our articles, out of respect for the dead and for our readers and to maintain general respectability as something other than a shock-site which turns NOTCENSORED into a shop of horrors. I removed this image when I first saw it. But ignorance has a way of kicking-you-in-the-junk, and after I read 30 or 40 articles in major media, I got the point. I don't think USchick has done that, so she is applying a lay understanding of technical law and policy to a boogey-man that actually doesn't exist once you peak under the bed and read the RS. When this image is one of the few like it on Wikipedia it will match the very real truth that it is one of the few like it in the World. Ocaasi (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
