User talk:T.J.C.

About me

Nothing to say just yet, more information coming soon.

Homeopathy intro

For a lot of people Homeopathy is notable precisely because it uses treatments that are just water. It's important to have that stated up front in the introduction, in an appropriately neutral way, because not to do so doesn't properly present the balance of views. -62.31.82.2 10:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T.J.C. Go carefully on homeopathy please, I can see temperatures rising (I'm keeping my head low). Peter morrell is potentially a great assett, so don't bite the newbie, and be gentle with the non-English please. :)Gleng 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tsk* Alright, I see your point, and I'll ease up a bit. Sometimes, I just can't help myself... :) T.J.C. 21:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert a whole section because "one reference is in German". Ask on the talk page if the one reference could be improved. Actually, the reference was in German, French, Italian and English; I have explicitly indicated this now in the article reference.

In addition, marking a large-scale revert as minor is considered extremely poor manners, as well as a falsification. It does not help one's reputation on the Wikipedia. Hgilbert 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you discuss your changes before you made them, then? T.J.C. 19:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding cited information is a normal part of the work of a Wikipedia editor. Feel free to expand articles using verifiable material without prior consultation. Before reverting material or making other controversial edits, it is extremely helpful to discuss the question, or at least explain your reasons for the proposed change, on the article talk page, preferably before making the edit. Perhaps these Wikipedia rules will help. Hgilbert 20:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just wondering, considering that the most effective option if legitimately disputed by its own authors is probably to drop the entire Lancet section entirely, as opposed to fostering an article that argues incessantly among itself. Refutations to the study in the same domain as the study itself were already there. The article is already too long. Adding superfluous information doesn't improve it. T.J.C. 23:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Lancet article has - for better or for worse - become a key focus in the discussion over homeopathy, it is important to have a clear picture of what it says, and also of its serious flaws, in the article. Hgilbert 00:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then yes, you're correct, it is better to show the argument. T.J.C. 01:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Ref, you could add the correct info yourself, but I'd like a copy too. Thanks again!--TimVickers 22:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not a magical thinker I need time to rewrite Homeopathy. My claim remains and in time I try to rewrite maybe a 30% with neccesary citations, logic etc. My claim is not dependent on what everbody (10 people at the most who read my claim) think, but on presentation of facts. --Homy 07:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics etc

Hi TJC. Thanks for posting the demographics info on the pseudoscience article. It is something I overlooked. There is also some possibly relevant info by a prof called Drenth (ALLEA) Pseudoscience - a threat to psychology. ANd there is a book called science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology that raises awareness about people's beliefs. It is an important issue. There is info about homeopathy in those refs also. I also noticed that there are many articles that have not recieved proper attention, due to pseudoscientific thinkers hogging the article, or due to misconception in general. I'll see if I can get some more info on this particular area in order to make the relevant changes. If you do come across similarly useful information, it'd be great to hear about it. Thanks Savoylettuce 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Was this you editing? JoshuaZ 04:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I suppose I should add my tag to that seeing as it's seemingly somewhat, er, contradictory to my stance on homeopathy. Thanks! T.J.C. 18:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]