Jump to content

User talk:Peter morrell/archive 2

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

Articles I have created
Farndon, Nottinghamshire, Antiscience, Antireductionism, Harvey Warren Zorbaugh, Everett Stonequist, Louis Wirth, Professionalization, Frederic Thrasher, Jesse R. Pitts, John Weir, John Forbes, Eugène Galien-Laloue, Edouard Leon Cortes, Everett Hughes, Fiskerton, Nottinghamshire, Kelham, Hoveringham, East Stoke, Nottinghamshire, Society of the Sacred Mission, Thorpe, Nottinghamshire, Hockerton, Sibthorpe, Gonalston, Rolleston, Nottinghamshire, Cotham, Nottinghamshire, Scientific imperialism, Embourgeoisement, Affluentization, Fragmentalism

Articles I have contributed to
Arthur Berry, Seighford, Homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, Rupert Sheldrake, Ferdinand Toennies, Howard S. Becker, Robert E. Park, Charles Cooley, Georg Simmel, Radionics, Social exclusion, Marginalization, David Hockney, Kalachakra, Nihilism, Counterculture, Pseudoscience, Deviant behaviour, Scientism, Sierra Leone, Johannes Scotus Eriugena, Hippie, Rajneesh, Georges Sorel, River Manifold, Chicago school (sociology), Leonardo da Vinci, Graffiti, Banksy, Salvador Dalí, Harold MacMillan, Margaret Thatcher, Classical homeopathy, Mandala, Tim Marlow, John Berger, Ways of seeing, W. H. Auden, Peter Blake (artist), Augustus John, Gwen John, Camille Pissarro, Averham, Thurgarton, Gunthorpe, Nottinghamshire, Walter Hilton, Stoke Bardolph, Dylan Thomas, Elston, Bingham, Nottinghamshire, Allen Ginsberg, Stafford, East Bridgford, Kneeton, Buddha, Nidana, Bindu, Samatha meditation, Anapanasati, Jacob Epstein, Francis Bacon (painter), Dhyana, Brahmavihara, Paramita, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Impressionism, Alexander Rosenberg, Marsha Thomason, Surrealism, Holism, Holism in science, The Fast Show, Simon Day, Quantification, Graffiti, John Howard (artist) Gordon Brown, Shakespearean authorship question, Talk:John Constable, Talk:Gordon Brown, Harold Wilson, Mary Wilson (poet), George Melly, Edward Shils, Arctic Monkeys, The Jam, Burslem School of Art, Robert Mugabe, Drug dynamization, Scientism, Phil Drabble, Kristin Scott Thomas, Don Arden, Licensure, Roy Strong, Biddulph Grange, Edward William Cooke, James Bateman, Packwood, Patti Boyd

/archive 1

Biddulph Grange

[edit]
  • The images are great, thanks for offering to provide them. However, as the copyright holder you need to tell us specifically what people are allowed to do with the images. The best licenses for Wikipedia are this one and this one. Please can you have a look at the links and tell us if you're happy with them? I can take you through the upload process in three simple steps if you are willing to try again. Thanks Papa November 22:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to use these images as if they are your own property. The copyright is yours. cheers Peter morrell 06:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Original Barnstar

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
I'm awarding you this barnstar for your help in rewriting the homeopathy article. It is now implemented and hopefully will improve even further in the near future. Great job! Wikidudeman (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Working Man's Barnstar
I'm awarding you this "Working" barnstar as well because you went the extra mile to help me rewrite the Homeopathy article. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Buddhism, I moved our traditional material to a sidebox

[edit]

Hi Peter - I really hope you don't mind but, because I was getting a little lost among the various titles and subtitles, I took the liberty of moving the traditional material (yours and mine) to a sidebox under the main entry title ("Buddhism and intellectualism"). I didn't think you would mind -- very much hope you don't -- but I've never actually moved another person's material on a talk page, so I would deeply regret it if my doing so offends you in any way. If so, please revert or let me know and I will be happy to do so. I wish you the best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter - sorry for my lack of clarity. If you go to Talk:Buddhism#Study_is_one_thing.3B_practice_is_very_much_another and scroll up several inches, you'll see it on the right one-third of the page, with the top-most header being "A Cup of Tea." I placed it there based on timestamps -- you had a text entry of 11:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC) and then the Zen account was timestamped 11:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC), so I thought it appropriate to put them beside each other. Again, I hope this is okay. If not, feel free to change it (of course) or let me know if you'd like me to do so. Thanks again. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, just go here: Talk:Buddhism#A_Cup_of_Tea. I've reinserted the sectional header tags to the headings for our traditional material. (I had originally removed them because I thought they were interfering with the sidebox's table tags, but, on second thought, I realize I was wrong.) I've made "A Cup of Tea" a subsection (that is, used "===" instead of "==") to signify that it is associated with the overall "Buddhism and intellectualism" thread; however, again, if this is against your intention or best reflection, please please please feel free to revert/undo/re-do any or all of it or instruct me to do so. Thanks again, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, thanks for your kind and interesting note. FWIW, in terms of myself, like most I guess I started reading about Buddhism in a non-discriminating manner, especially enjoying the writing of Philip Kapleau, Robert Aiken, Joseph Goldstein, Jack Kornfield, Trunga Rinpoche, Lama Surya Das, D.T. Suzuki and Thich Nhat Hanh (to name some of those who immediately come to mind). My practice was Zen initially primarily becuase I found Kapleau's instructions in the Three Pillars of Zen to resonate most for me. I then occasionally participated in a Zen group in my area. Years later I moved and shopped around in my new location with an institutionalized Zen group, an informal vipassana/New Age group, an Order of Interbeing group, a Lama Surya Das group (with whom my wife is still affiliated), and finally settled down with a vipassana/Theravada group, while attending occasional retreats primarily by self-identified Theravadins (e.g., most memorably, a trip to Bhante G.'s Bhavana Society). So, for me, I guess it's primarily been a combination of geography, personality and access to resources (e.g., I find the Theravada canon to be so much more cohesive and more readily accessed from the Internet). Blah, blah, blah me. LOL. Thanks for all your excellent work -- both scholarly and interpersonally. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of the Buddhism page

[edit]

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your message. Nice, that you wrote it.

Yes, maybe we should discuss it.

I reverted the Buddhism article back to your last version dated Sept. 15,
because it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to condone all the information loss.

There was a lot of work done on the version.

Was there any discussion to replace it?

Tashi delegs,

Victor Klimov 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Peter, that seems to be a good idea.
However, I do not feel sure that right now I could play a very active role
in such a discussion. Victor Klimov 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hallo dear Peter. Thanks for your nice message. Yes, the Buddhism article is currently undergoing a reincarnation, it seems! I personally thought the earlier version (the one before Peter J. made massive changes) was pretty interesting and informative, given some subtractions and deletions and tweakings here and there, but I also think Peter J's version is a good basis for further work. The problem is that not too many editors are actively involved at the moment (and I myself will be very busy over the coming few days). I am interested to know, Peter, what you would like to see added to the entry - how you would like to see its focus or tone shifted, perhaps, or what extra material could be added, or whether we should not be so "nit-picking"? I am not being contrary here: I just am genuinely interested to see how you think we could improve things. Myself, I personally don't like calling Mahayana Buddhism "East Asian Buddhism" - but that discussion has been had and my side lost out! What do you feel about that and similar matters? Anyway, for what it's worth, I myself am happy to work with what Peter J. has provided. But perhaps you would prefer to revert back to the earlier version?? For me, both versions are acceptable, given improvements here and there. Thanks again for contacting me, Peter. I look forward to hearing more of your own views. Best regards. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the advice. There seems to be something in it.
I'll think about it. Victor Klimov 11:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 reverts

[edit]

Peter, is it not 3 reverts in one day, that are disallowed?
Victor Klimov 12:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pine

[edit]

He isn't qualified. Arrow740 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with a degree, or who is recognized as an authority by people in authority. Arrow740 06:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

[edit]

Hi Peter! The article is indeed completely messed up by anti-homeopathic sentiments which, although valid and need to be documented, have taken over the article and dominate. They give a seeker the wrong information due to WP:UNDUE. How to fix it? Well, I think the WP:GAR is a good start. I would work there to gain consensus with a group of uninvolved editors, and as I have not edited the article, and know a bit about the topic, that is what I think I should do. You could also start another page on your sandbox (if you do, let me know and all the others who want to contribute positively) and the article can be re-written and presented to the good reviewers as an alternative. All the best! docboat 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have said my piece. I expect reaction, but that is a homeopathic response. :) docboat 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figure I'll chime in here as well to express my appreciation for your help in understanding Hahnemann's process. What makes this exercise slightly ridiculous for me is that I have used homeopathic remedies that work, so I'm only trying to figure out what sort of mental blockade is in place that prevents studies from being done to confirm what anyone can confirm for themselves. It's like saying that the sky is blue and people are refusing to look out the window. Whig 08:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professionalization

[edit]

Please provide any reliable inline references you can for the article Professionalization. Many thanks! -- • • • Blue Pixel 02:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

[edit]

I appreciate and accept your offer of truce and collaboration. I apologize for the delay in responding to your message - I felt that it was best for me to stay out of the homeopathy debate for a while. I see that WDM has added the Benveniste material to the article. What's your opinion on how it stands now? Cheers, Skinwalker 22:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy as a FAC

[edit]

Hi Peter, I've been wondering that since the edit warring on this article seems to be over, if it might have a chance of becoming a Featured Article. As you have put a lot of work into this article and you are one of the editors I can happily work with, I was wondering if you might be able to help with this process? Any thoughts on this would be welcome. Tim Vickers 23:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter, its great to work with calm editors like yourself in a constructive manner, without people running about shouting and reverting things every five minutes. Tim Vickers 20:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim, I agree. cheers Peter morrell 20:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Commons

[edit]

The image bank is called Wikimedia Commons and one of the best ways of searching it is with [1]. All the best Tim Vickers 16:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In one word, "mischief"! Tim Vickers 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Peter, lost track of my talk page there. The site says "Mayflower is currently undergoing maintenance. It should be back in a few hours. We apologize for the inconvenience. -- Tangotango, Tue Oct 23 04:00:00 UTC 2007" at the moment, I suppose it will be fixed soon, but I don't know when. Tim Vickers 21:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan's Drawn Blank series

[edit]

Hi Peter, Thanks for adding Dylan's art exhibition to the Bob Dylan article. I've taken the liberty of moving it to the 2000s section, because administrators have already criticised this article for having too many subsections. Another section for a 2 sentence summary seemed wrong, though the info & the references are fascinating. best wishes Mick gold 09:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

[edit]

Hi Peter:

I didn't want to put this on the homeopathy talk page.

We were told an hour or two ago that the homeopathy article was back to GA status. We were just having an argument to celebrate. ;o)

Thank you for your input on that page. It is very difficult for Whig. He tries to maintain a neutral POV. Most other people regularly involved have made it known one way or another that they are anti-homeopathy. Because of this, any time the discussion hinges on POV, Whig is facing several others, most or all of whom are arguing against him. However, they are not necessarily arguing the same points. This makes it more difficult, confusing, and frustrating.

To me, it is unbelievable that someone could talk about "circular reasoning, and lack of knowledge about basic science" AND then claim it was NOT a personal attack.

(By the way, I also try to be neutral, but I'm a very minor player in this.) Cheers, Wanderer57 21:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Peter. I got your message. Wanderer57 05:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your always careful and excellent edits to Homeopathy Whig 16:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be cool

[edit]

I am not thrilled with his recent behavior either. Go to his talk page and see. Just make sure that if you are going to gripe that you do it at the appropriate venue. I know it can be tedious and frustrating at times, but have some comfort in knowing that you are sharing this experience with others. :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 19:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Burslem

[edit]

Thanks for your kind words. I think you have made a good job of the Wedgwood Institute article...it has the right flavour. There is still more to do on Burslem. --Alan 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antireductionism

[edit]

Hi Peter. Adam and I were discussing your article at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Antireductionism earlier today when I suggested the redirect. Per your edit summary, and from reading the respective articles, I'm not sure how antireductionism differs from holism. Would you come over and talk about it? Thanks! Skinwalker 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Antireductionism) Thanks for YOUR POV. If this is so then why was it Adam who made the action? however, in relation to the question, AR is really a suspicion on the part of many, esp in the social sciences, but also in portions of biology, that reductionism is too simplistic for adequately describing complex systems and processes and that it innately oversimplifies and thus distorts and misleads. Especially in ecology and weather systems for example. Such folks do not believe that reductionism inherently can generate the answers it promises: it can prove to be non-insightful. Holism by contrast believes that phenomena in general are best perceived as wholes rather than via analysis of parts. I agree these are close to each other but holism is probably the broader concept and I would say they are different precisely because both terms occur in academic discourse...which kind of justifies their separate inclusion here. Also I would say the AR article is much better than the other one which is very poorly ref'd and too generalised to be of much use. It looks like a rag bag mix of all sorts of odd stuff simply thrown together. I guess you will disagree. What attracts you to fringe theories as you like to call them? and why clean them up when embryogenesis and embryology cry out to be merged but I don't see you two banging on about that. BTW I am a zoologist by training so I disagree with your view of my understanding of what science is. If you do merge them then please merge them proper rather than deleting whole swathes of stuff. OK? cheers Peter morrell

Just wanted to follow up and make sure I understand the difference. As I now understand it, antireductionism is a term for a reaction to reductionism, whereas holism indicates a philosophy of viewing systems as a whole instead of as a collection of components. Holism may or may not be a reaction to a reductionist view, but antireductionism always is. Is this correct? For what it's worth, I agree partially with your opinion on the holism in science article. It needs some cleanup too - there's some uncited fluff in there about orthomolecular medicine, and this is such a broad topic that it may need splitting into holism in various specific disciplines (e.g. holism in physics, holism in ecology, etc). Cheers, Skinwalker 14:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you want my reply but here goes. Yes, you seem to have the broad thrust of it. Antireductionists may or may not optionally adopt a holistic approach; what they primarily see are the limitations of the hardline reductionist approach in certain situations, maybe not in all. Holists of course are also antireductionist but do take a holistic view in most if not all situations. One other point is that both take the view that the fragmentalist view science adopts to viewing phenomena (breaking the world into parts and mechanisms of parts) is limited and optional; it is seen merely as one method, rather than the method for gaining understanding about our world. Antireductionists would accept some reductionism some of the time while holists would prefer to gain knowledge through looking at wholes, not through what they regard as the 'illusory' parts. I hope this clarifies. I will try to improve the AR article further as time permits. I did promise to do that some months back but somehow it fell from view. thanks Peter morrell 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at Willen

[edit]

Dear Peter, noting that you have edited Kelham, SSM, and various Buddhist articles - have you been to the Well at Willen? If not, you might like it. They have strong links with the Buddhists next door. Also, Alistair Mason's book is first rate, and I learned a lot about the CofE from reading about it from that perspective. BTW, it's good to know that more and more people like you are keeping an eye on the wiki for reliability.

-) Oliver Low 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whig's block is being discussed at WP:AN/I#Reblocked_User:Whig. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Scannell

[edit]

Dear Peter morrell, thank you for your kind message. It did the formatting with pleasure. With kind regards, --BF 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi Peter morrell -- I have been drawing in part from the work you did on professionalization for a new series of articles on the history of various occupations, starting right now with women in the workforce, women in the medical professions, and so on. Looks like you might be familiar with these fields; do please contribute if you have time & interest. --Lquilter (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy scales

[edit]

Peter, I have taken the material we worked out before and distilled some of it into a draft at User:Filll/homeopathyscales. Please take a look at this admittedly very rough text and let me know where I have made some mistakes. I probably should have some more references as well I guess. I want this to explain the potency scales as clearly as we can. Any other material that should be included? Other scales? Even if obscure?--Filll (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, since it is the holiday season

[edit]

But if you get around to that rough draft we are writing and some of my questions sometime when you get a spare second, I would be grateful. Thanks and best wishes of the season.--Filll (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia search engine

[edit]

Hi - I saw your comment at an RFC that you needed a search engine for Wikipedia pages. This one works great:

Hope that's helpful. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complementary and alternative medicine

[edit]

Peter Morrell, your worldwide reputation as a medical historian speaks for itself. Editing at complementary and alternative medicine could use the input of such an academic authority. That article needs to be broaden by more of a British perspective on the subject. And, your credentials are impeccable. -- John Gohde (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, John, for your generous comments & kind words, I would not describe myself quite so glowingly; however I will take a look at the article at some point, rather busy right now with non-WP stuff, cheers Peter morrell 07:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine needs your vote on a merge proposal. Time is of the essence. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide refs for Dana Ullman

[edit]

Please provide refs to support your recent changes to the Dana Ullman article. The appeal to his website is not good enough to back up this information. See the Dana Ullman talk page. I'm not going to fall for any silly "lets see if we can get him to revert 3 times or more" stuff either (this is directed at all those currently stalking my edits, and not directly at you Peter). Thanks --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary statement

[edit]

I think it might be better if it were a subheading of your present statement. —Whig (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Homeopathy article

[edit]

I know it seems like I am constantly starting homeopathy articles in sandboxes, but I promise you I am not forgetting about any of these rough drafts and I intend to turn them all into real articles !

However, some discussion resulted in a suggestion that we should make a wikilinked list of the "main" homeopathic ingredeients or remedies, if such a thing can be determined (we are not quite sure where to look and what "main" might mean exactly, but you know better than us for sure).

We would presumably be looking for all kinds of things; animal, mineral and vegetable (is there anything else?). I am not sure how long the list should be. Ten of each? 20? 50? More?

The talk page for the list to be is at Talk:List of homeopathic remedies. Any suggestions of where we should look to start building up a list would be appreciated. Thanks. --Filll (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding here?

[edit]

From the homeopathy page. Great masses of seriously deluded folks. Anthon01 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo

[edit]

Hi Peter. Thanks for drawing attention to Greenaway's latest effort. I have removed your addition to two pages: Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci and The Last Supper (Leonardo). If you go to the latter, you will see why I removed it from the main page about Leonardo's biography and work. It isn't directly related to either his biography or to his work- it is another artist's creative interpretation of Leonardo's work. There is a long list of interesting news items in relation to this painting, and they are at the painting's page, rather than Leonardo's page. Amandajm (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of that section of the article is to give a brief overview of the history of Leonardo's life as a painter, mentioning only the most significant works and their stylistic development and importance. Believe me, I have enough info on the subject to have banged on for another 50 pages or so, just talking about the artworks. Keeping it down has been an effort. This is the reason why there are 3 other articles on Leonardo, plus monographs on all his most significant work. This is definitely stuff for the monograph, not the main page.
The reason for the reversal is that this information, regardless of how interesting the final product might be, is that the fact that it is being produced tells us nothing the historic figure of Leonardo. It tells us that another artist is doing or has done an interpretation of his work. The animation itself is essentially a display. If we are going to include it, then we can justify mentioning every interpretative exhibition, every book that has been written, every documentary made. This new "light and sound show" might constitute the work of an artists who is well known for these things, but he is not Leonardo da Vinci. The sorts of things that an art historian would refer to as an "important new development" (with relation to that artwork) would be something like the discovery of 15th century archives pertaining to its creation, newly discovered drawings that related to it or an earthquake demolishing the building.
The right way to use this material is to look at it as a new interpretation, and assess its value, in the same way as we would read a book or article or exhibition notes to enlighten us on the subject. This means that once the animation is completed, if a significant new interpretation comes out of it, then one could write something like:
"The gestures of the Apostle James indicate his consternation"(ref) Peter Greenaway blah blah blah blah (/ref)
As I have already pointed out, there is a mass of information that could be said, that is more significant than this. Most particularly, the recent resoration that had a very significant effect on the physical fabric of the work of art, and was subject to a huge amount of controversy. I have not described this process on the main page because it doesn't relate directly to Leonardo. We could write a whole article on that subject alone: see Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes.
Amandajm (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A word

[edit]

you contributed to the confusion and not for the first time - I didn't mean to offend, and I don't know of another time that I was involved in confusion with you, but I think that your paragraph is useful and important. If you really don't want to continue, that's your prerogative, but I'll probably try to incorporate it into the article anyway. Antelantalk 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability not truth

[edit]

Peter, you should focus on whether the sentence is verifiable, that is justified by citations to reliable sources, instead of debating whether the statement is true. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

knowledge and math

[edit]

Peter, I respect your knowledge as zoologist, and I don't doubt at all your knowledge as such, but I think you are making a series of bad assumptions on your argument about pheromones which invalidate the arguments that you are basing on them. Mainly, the relative concentrations and the validity of comparing the detection of pheromones (which only needs a few molecules) with the effect of a certain substance on human body (which would need a huger amount of molecules to have an effect). Until those assumptions are taken into account, I can't accept the arguments that you are forwarding based on them --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am still discussing with Fill about which is the actual concentration on a given homeopathic remedy, and another editor comments that the pheromone proportion is actually higher due to errors on the first studies, so we would be comparing unknown proportions, so all our comparisons would be flawed from the start :( --Enric Naval (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more bits slowly appearing on the scale draft

[edit]

In particular, what size are the pellets and what are the made of (especially those for making LM1, LM2 etc)

Some discussion of various pellet sizes [2].--Filll (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It states:

Medicated Pellets are manufactured in various sizes e.g. #10 pellets (very small), #20 pellets (small), #35 pellets (regular) and #55 pellets (large). While the diameter of the medicated pellet differs from size to size

So what are those diameters? Weights? Volumes? What are they made of?--Filll (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible interview?

[edit]

Would you consider appearing on [3]? It is easiest with a headset, or you can use a microphone and speakers. It is also possible to do it with a telephone in the US and Canada. I have done it twice so far and it was sort of fun. --Filll (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a NotTheWikipediaWeekly message

[edit]

Hi folks,

I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.

If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!

best, Privatemusings (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New userpage

[edit]

User talk:Peter morrell/Selection of studies. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a quality WP:BOLD idea, Tim, to userify this to . And I'm glad Peter grabbed all those reviews and meta-analyses that languished in the archives! I'll be sure to add any interesting sources I come across. — Scientizzle 23:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Homeopathy/Selection_of_studies

[edit]

I closed the discussion on this as Userfy/Keep considering it had already been userfied. I did make several comments in my decision you may wish to review at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Homeopathy/Selection_of_studies and I added {{usertalk}} to the top of the userfied page (though I wonder at why it was placed in your usertalk space and not in userspace probably just that it was in talk space previously). Any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allopathic medicine

[edit]

I read your recent comments on Talk Allopathic medicine. I'm curious as to your opinion of the US-"usage" of the term, as light of recent sources such as:

Cheers. Bryan Hopping T 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I hear that you are more or less happy with the article as it is. My question is Do you think that content, such as in an article such as Grassroots Activism and the Pursuit of an Expanded Physician Supply NEJM, should or should not be in some way included in the allopathic medicine article. If so, how should it be included? Are you happy with how this US-aspect of the term is represented now? Thanks! Bryan Hopping T 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. You seemed to have expressed an opinion on this topic in the past, that's the only reason I asked. It is confusing, even to those of us with the field! It also an area of great active debate. Cheers! Bryan Hopping T 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_morrell/archive_2&oldid=1141064281"