![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Question as to whether SAXS belongs on a list of x-ray diffraction techniques. My physicist friends complain that SAXS and x-ray reflectivity aren't diffraction techniques because the length scale of the radiation (angstroms) is much smaller than the length scale being probed - they would prefer to call SAXS and XRR "x-ray scattering" techniques to differentiate them from conventional XRD techniques, even though they use similar apparatus. Any thoughts? Maybe relegate SAXS and XRR to a "related techniques" section on the main XRD page? Irene Ringworm 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello please can you rename Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface to Quantum Xyrroid Consciousness Interface, thank you. Sandman30s 10:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I modified the part you changed.. is it ok? see diff ---- Action potential t c 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Eldereft - I've appreciated your careful attention to detail at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. A question: do you have physics expertise? I see some topics that I'm not sure belong with Time Cube et. al. under "Idiosyncratic theories", e.g. Electrogravitics, but lack the knowledge to properly evaluate them. Given the ArbCom's criteria, and if we don't have a source labelling them as pseudoscientific, maybe better to move them to something like List of minority-opinion scientific theories? Or a list of outdated theories or something. cheers, Jim Butler( talk) 04:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, wow and wow. I must say very impressed. I have some changes I would make, but by far it is an excellent treatment. I will comment more in a little while. Thank you. Anthon01 ( talk) 15:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for posting your thoughts on AK. Now I will have to reread the neurology chapter (300 pages) out of my copy of the British gray's anatomy. It will take some time but I'm determined. Also, I've corrected the error I made on my talk page regarding your vote on the matter of homeopathy. I believe in now reflects your response in the RS Noticeboard. BTW, no offense is taken by your comments. Conversation is a good thing. Anthon01 ( talk) 06:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
At your suggestion, I posted my comments on the Pseudoscience talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBFrenchhorn ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 ( talk) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"consistently pro-(alleged)pseudosciences editor"? is that really what you think of me? -- Levine2112 discuss 08:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up vis a vis your updates to the anthroposophic medicine entry. Looks good except for some sources that do not meet verifiability criteria, as they are self-published websites. Since there were 4 or 5 citations for the one sentence, and two good ones are left, it makes no difference to the article otherwise. Hgilbert ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please ensure you revert to a good version. You reverted one edit on confirmation bias to another version by the same IP; the 'naming' section has thus been blank for ages (thought someone may have wondered about this, but I am apparently the first to actually look into what happened). Richard001 ( talk) 05:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There are subtle differences. Unity and Divine Science tend to use Christ Mind, Christ Consciousness much more Christian sounding in its verbiage but correlates to Religious Science use of One Mind, Divine Mind. Unity adherents tend to draw more of a distinction between themselves and Divine Science and Religious Science. They both use Affirmative Prayer Religious Science uses a distinctive a five step process, Unity and Divine Science three step. maybe I'm splitting hairs but there are differences. Thanks JGG59 ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
http://drhudson.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlandokork ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh thank you for pointing me out at that mistake. Was my bad. I checked, Destin is a very popular name so I have added exception to AWB spellchecker. TestPilot 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice edits on Reiki. See what you think of my change. —— Martinphi ? ? ?—— 08:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
How can you possibly be thinking of offering a 3O on Talk:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam, when many more than two editors are already involved? Johnfos ( talk) 05:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. The problem is that a 3O at this stage would, I think, devalue the voting and discussion process that has gone on with the page. By all means indicate if you support or oppose the merge as an individual editor, or offer some other input, but to come in and offer a 30 after all that has been said would not be very constructive and in fact would undo a lot of good work. Johnfos ( talk) 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You don'; seem to discuss a damn thing ... just bold removing information! J. D. Redding 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Here I thought for sure it was a warning that SA had reported me to Arbitration enforcement again, and I get your nice message. Yeah, that was a bad source, but usually those kinds of statements only need a teeny bit of attribution to be acceptable. Keep in touch. —— Martinphi ? ? ?—— 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ ( talk) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm too involved in the chiropratic broo haha to devote the proper time and energy to clean up Acu, but see that you've been doing a commendable job. I'm a bit surprised at what I perceive to be an overblown debate; it seems to be effective for MSK pain syndromes and a select # of non NMS (post-chemo nausea, for example). The stuff that has weak evidence should be labelled as "inconclusive". That word passes no judgment either way; there just not enough info to make a strong conclusion. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal ( talk) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering SMT was practiced by ancient civilizations in both China, Europe and Egypt and notably by Hipprocrates, I didn't think I would be a big deal. Are you looking for a ref? Cheers, CorticoSpinal ( talk) 01:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hope I wasn't too bold in posting a modification of your proposal, but of course we can always change it. I agree that paring it down is a great improvement. cheers, Jim Butler ( t) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the Bates method crap from Amblyopia. I'm absolutely sick of this sh*t, as you can tell from my last post to Bates method... Famousdog ( talk) 13:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Lazy eye" (a total misnomer if ever there was one) refers to amblyopia, not strabismus. However, the two often co-occur (probably a causal relationship), so they are frequently confused. I changed the wording to retain the link to strabismus, but without giving the impression that the two are the same thing. Hope that's okay. Famousdog ( talk) 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain your reasons for your edit at Talk:AIDS_reappraisal#Removal_of_information. Maybe I am missing something. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide ( talk) 22:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for linking me with to very useful wikitool just after me reverting your edit :-) Randroide ( talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
I looked at the diff, and thought it was very well done and a great improvement. I'll look over the article later today and also the source. Good work (: —— Martinphi ? ? ?—— 18:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. —— Martinphi ? ? ?—— 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Eldereft, A sane voice at last. I still maintain using the term "Denialists' is wrong as it is an insult just as the dissident term for 'believers', namely 'apologists' is. Both should not be used in Wikipedia. The image is there to try to smear the dissident position and adds nothing to the discussion. A picture of Duesberg would seem more to the point or none at all. All I am asking is that this article conforms to established Wikipedia policy and is NOT a vehicle for AIDS activists to smear the opposing point of view.Aimulti (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
WHAT WAS WRONG WITH MY ORIGINAL EDITS?
AIDS denialism is a loosely connected group of individuals who dispute the scientific consensus that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
I have changed the above which uses a derogatory term to describe a point of view (AIDS dissidents). This is not balanced and impartial coverage of a topic and is in clear breach of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Even the word 'denialism' is a concoction.
AIDS denialism is a term that is considered by those calling for a reappraisal of the currently accepted hypothesis of the cause of the 'disease' as derogatory in nature (as it implies that they are denying that which exists, instead of opposing what they see as a medical blunder).
AND TO THE PICTURE CAPTION
Electron micrograph proporting to depict (topographically) the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.
CHANGED FROM
Electron micrograph of the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.
Aimulti ( talk) 01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Let us see what Robert Gallo says about EM images. Gallo (page 1306) Frankly speaking, I never relied on electron microscopy. I don’t think electron microscopy does much, except for the person who’s a structural biologist and wants to look at real structure. No-one uses electron microscopy [in] virology any more – nobody. It is as rare as hen’s teeth. From Robert Gallo - testifying at the Andre Parenzee trial in Australia Aimulti (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason for removing references lists from talkpages? I find them convenient when discussing precise proposed wording and issues with sourcing. - Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Eldereft--many thanks for mediating in the dispute over this page. As this entry has now been deleted, I was wondering if it's possible to access it still to transfer any useful portions into the main PCR page (as discussed during the dispute). Thanks!! Malljaja ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Question as to whether SAXS belongs on a list of x-ray diffraction techniques. My physicist friends complain that SAXS and x-ray reflectivity aren't diffraction techniques because the length scale of the radiation (angstroms) is much smaller than the length scale being probed - they would prefer to call SAXS and XRR "x-ray scattering" techniques to differentiate them from conventional XRD techniques, even though they use similar apparatus. Any thoughts? Maybe relegate SAXS and XRR to a "related techniques" section on the main XRD page? Irene Ringworm 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello please can you rename Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface to Quantum Xyrroid Consciousness Interface, thank you. Sandman30s 10:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I modified the part you changed.. is it ok? see diff ---- Action potential t c 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Eldereft - I've appreciated your careful attention to detail at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. A question: do you have physics expertise? I see some topics that I'm not sure belong with Time Cube et. al. under "Idiosyncratic theories", e.g. Electrogravitics, but lack the knowledge to properly evaluate them. Given the ArbCom's criteria, and if we don't have a source labelling them as pseudoscientific, maybe better to move them to something like List of minority-opinion scientific theories? Or a list of outdated theories or something. cheers, Jim Butler( talk) 04:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, wow and wow. I must say very impressed. I have some changes I would make, but by far it is an excellent treatment. I will comment more in a little while. Thank you. Anthon01 ( talk) 15:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for posting your thoughts on AK. Now I will have to reread the neurology chapter (300 pages) out of my copy of the British gray's anatomy. It will take some time but I'm determined. Also, I've corrected the error I made on my talk page regarding your vote on the matter of homeopathy. I believe in now reflects your response in the RS Noticeboard. BTW, no offense is taken by your comments. Conversation is a good thing. Anthon01 ( talk) 06:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
At your suggestion, I posted my comments on the Pseudoscience talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBFrenchhorn ( talk • contribs) 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 ( talk) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"consistently pro-(alleged)pseudosciences editor"? is that really what you think of me? -- Levine2112 discuss 08:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up vis a vis your updates to the anthroposophic medicine entry. Looks good except for some sources that do not meet verifiability criteria, as they are self-published websites. Since there were 4 or 5 citations for the one sentence, and two good ones are left, it makes no difference to the article otherwise. Hgilbert ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please ensure you revert to a good version. You reverted one edit on confirmation bias to another version by the same IP; the 'naming' section has thus been blank for ages (thought someone may have wondered about this, but I am apparently the first to actually look into what happened). Richard001 ( talk) 05:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There are subtle differences. Unity and Divine Science tend to use Christ Mind, Christ Consciousness much more Christian sounding in its verbiage but correlates to Religious Science use of One Mind, Divine Mind. Unity adherents tend to draw more of a distinction between themselves and Divine Science and Religious Science. They both use Affirmative Prayer Religious Science uses a distinctive a five step process, Unity and Divine Science three step. maybe I'm splitting hairs but there are differences. Thanks JGG59 ( talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
http://drhudson.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlandokork ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh thank you for pointing me out at that mistake. Was my bad. I checked, Destin is a very popular name so I have added exception to AWB spellchecker. TestPilot 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice edits on Reiki. See what you think of my change. —— Martinphi ? ? ?—— 08:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
How can you possibly be thinking of offering a 3O on Talk:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam, when many more than two editors are already involved? Johnfos ( talk) 05:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. The problem is that a 3O at this stage would, I think, devalue the voting and discussion process that has gone on with the page. By all means indicate if you support or oppose the merge as an individual editor, or offer some other input, but to come in and offer a 30 after all that has been said would not be very constructive and in fact would undo a lot of good work. Johnfos ( talk) 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You don'; seem to discuss a damn thing ... just bold removing information! J. D. Redding 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Here I thought for sure it was a warning that SA had reported me to Arbitration enforcement again, and I get your nice message. Yeah, that was a bad source, but usually those kinds of statements only need a teeny bit of attribution to be acceptable. Keep in touch. —— Martinphi ? ? ?—— 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ ( talk) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm too involved in the chiropratic broo haha to devote the proper time and energy to clean up Acu, but see that you've been doing a commendable job. I'm a bit surprised at what I perceive to be an overblown debate; it seems to be effective for MSK pain syndromes and a select # of non NMS (post-chemo nausea, for example). The stuff that has weak evidence should be labelled as "inconclusive". That word passes no judgment either way; there just not enough info to make a strong conclusion. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal ( talk) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering SMT was practiced by ancient civilizations in both China, Europe and Egypt and notably by Hipprocrates, I didn't think I would be a big deal. Are you looking for a ref? Cheers, CorticoSpinal ( talk) 01:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hope I wasn't too bold in posting a modification of your proposal, but of course we can always change it. I agree that paring it down is a great improvement. cheers, Jim Butler ( t) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the Bates method crap from Amblyopia. I'm absolutely sick of this sh*t, as you can tell from my last post to Bates method... Famousdog ( talk) 13:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Lazy eye" (a total misnomer if ever there was one) refers to amblyopia, not strabismus. However, the two often co-occur (probably a causal relationship), so they are frequently confused. I changed the wording to retain the link to strabismus, but without giving the impression that the two are the same thing. Hope that's okay. Famousdog ( talk) 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain your reasons for your edit at Talk:AIDS_reappraisal#Removal_of_information. Maybe I am missing something. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide ( talk) 22:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for linking me with to very useful wikitool just after me reverting your edit :-) Randroide ( talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
I looked at the diff, and thought it was very well done and a great improvement. I'll look over the article later today and also the source. Good work (: —— Martinphi ? ? ?—— 18:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. —— Martinphi ? ? ?—— 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Eldereft, A sane voice at last. I still maintain using the term "Denialists' is wrong as it is an insult just as the dissident term for 'believers', namely 'apologists' is. Both should not be used in Wikipedia. The image is there to try to smear the dissident position and adds nothing to the discussion. A picture of Duesberg would seem more to the point or none at all. All I am asking is that this article conforms to established Wikipedia policy and is NOT a vehicle for AIDS activists to smear the opposing point of view.Aimulti (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
WHAT WAS WRONG WITH MY ORIGINAL EDITS?
AIDS denialism is a loosely connected group of individuals who dispute the scientific consensus that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).
I have changed the above which uses a derogatory term to describe a point of view (AIDS dissidents). This is not balanced and impartial coverage of a topic and is in clear breach of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Even the word 'denialism' is a concoction.
AIDS denialism is a term that is considered by those calling for a reappraisal of the currently accepted hypothesis of the cause of the 'disease' as derogatory in nature (as it implies that they are denying that which exists, instead of opposing what they see as a medical blunder).
AND TO THE PICTURE CAPTION
Electron micrograph proporting to depict (topographically) the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.
CHANGED FROM
Electron micrograph of the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.
Aimulti ( talk) 01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Let us see what Robert Gallo says about EM images. Gallo (page 1306) Frankly speaking, I never relied on electron microscopy. I don’t think electron microscopy does much, except for the person who’s a structural biologist and wants to look at real structure. No-one uses electron microscopy [in] virology any more – nobody. It is as rare as hen’s teeth. From Robert Gallo - testifying at the Andre Parenzee trial in Australia Aimulti (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason for removing references lists from talkpages? I find them convenient when discussing precise proposed wording and issues with sourcing. - Eldereft ~( s) talk~ 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Eldereft--many thanks for mediating in the dispute over this page. As this entry has now been deleted, I was wondering if it's possible to access it still to transfer any useful portions into the main PCR page (as discussed during the dispute). Thanks!! Malljaja ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |