Just to welcome you. Hope you see that people aren't the unreasonable bigots that they can sometimes seem to be at first sight. Thanks for taking it gently on the chiropractic page - most pages on WP don't arouse such feelings, but then most won't be accessed so often either. Please don't be put off from adding to the article - just go for it, adding is always less of a problem than deleting, because deleting is taking away other people's work. Adding gives something fresh to think about and the intent will generally be to help improve. Gleng 21:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The Mediation Cabal
You are a disputant in a case listed under
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases.
We invite you to be a mediator in a different case.
Please read
How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~
-- Fasten 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your help in maintaining some neutrality against all the anti-chiropractic emotion. You have brought up some very valid points. You deserve a break. Looking forward to your return.
Barrett figured out that if it is about subjects he hates, by creating another website he can appear to be the expert. I have already raised the issue that it is un-Wikipedian of Fyslee to sprinkle Barrett's links throughout WP. A bit of a conflict since he has a close personal relatioinship with him, not to mention being his (Barrett's) assistant webmaster. I wonder how many links of Barrett's Fyslee has added to WP. That would make an interesting study in itself, wouldn't it?
Enjoy your tea. Thanks Steth 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Chiropractic. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. and please remember that to state that there is no scientific evidence to support Chirporactic is both correct and representative of the scientific consensus (per WP:NPOV). But well done for deciding to try compromise wording instead, I'm sure that with a bit of ingenuity a suitable lead can be written. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hughr, I found this and am not fully comfortable with the wording. I would appreciate any suggestions/changes you might recommend. Mass Marketing Don't forget to see the Talk page. Thanks Steth 10:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hugh, you asked why we couldn't, in writing the article on chiropractic, advocate that further research be done. Check WP:NOT and if you have further questions I'd be happy to help. Mccready 06:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, doctor. I know that it must be frustrating for you to see the slow development of the Chiropractic article. Your patience is much appreciated. I do think we may have reached some consensus on the first two sentences below, but I was wondering if you might have some comments on whether the third one is accurately stated:
Actually, AED did invite you:) See below.-- Dematt 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Cheers! - AED 07:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2006 (UTC)
I've been diverted for a while so my comment here might be outdated - if so sorry for wasting your time. I have come across a number of heavyweight recommendations that further research is needed, maybe the resolution is to quote one of these - then its not our view, we're just reporting on others views. I'll try to retrieve these, will take me a little time to get back into the flow here though. Gleng 12:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As you can imagine, the shear bulk of information is awesome and I have just finished the next two paragraphs but have to get the references right before I bring it out. If I bring it out too soon, it gets chopped up before I have time to get the main idea out. Even then it may get demolished. I'm trying to keep it NPOV and just the facts without regard to bias on either side. It's coming out soon. Hang in there, then I'll need everybody's help to fine tune it and then protect it from the sharkfest (AED's well chosen words). I think everybody here has good intentions, though some misguided. Keep a level head and be sure to think for yourself. Your enthusiasm is enheartening and helps to keep me going. -- Dematt 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hugh, I have been unfailingly polite to you and helpful. Were you referring to me as a troll when I asked Levine for evidence of his claim? If so, your comment was not in the spirit of a good wikipedian and may reflect a certain frustration on your part. Please try to maintain good relations in your discussions with users who are committed to producing the world's best encyclopedia without POV. Mccready 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hughgr, I want your input for the next part of the history concerning BJ Palmer. Come to this site -- Dematt 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Concerning your last edit... That was sooo awesome:)-- Dematt 06:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Hughgr, yeah, I know how you feel about the lead. But, I don't see any real problem with including asthma and migraine and anything else. I see people like these everyday and have similar results as you. Yeah, I treat them for back pain and they tell me their bladder symptoms that their MD diagnsoed years ago go away. These patients come back because of their bladders not their backs. Because the science is not there, you and I don't go yelling it across the hilltops, but when it does...
The thing I am waiting to see is if Mccready or Arthur revert. Then we'll try something else. Keep kicking!-- Dematt 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hughr, Just thought "whose aims are" sounded a little more educated and more professional. Steth 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I tried to get rid of the "aim" word a long time ago. Mccready put it in and kept reverting it back.-- Dematt 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Your DD quote was an awesome find! Finally something that didn't make him sound ignorant:) I also like you're changes on VS. Hope they hold up:) -- Dematt 12:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hughgr, did that quote come from "The Chiropractic Adjuster" or "The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic" or is it in both the magazine and the book? I may have referenced it wrong on the chiro page. If not, you can use the same source on the VS page. -- Dematt 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! This is great. You have really cleaned it up and covered all concepts. The pictures are great and they are public domain so you are fine because they were before 1923 in the US and the copyright has expired. You probably need to state your sources for the list of functional types of subluxations otherwise it looks like it is your opinion of what subluxations are and you are an editor - not a chiro:) (You are not supposed to know this stuff - you are just documenting it). Otherwise, skeptics will eat it up, so document your sources. Expect some changes from other editors, usually their POV helps you see things that you didn't think of before, so don't get upset, just keep building!!!! Don't you just love it:) -- Dematt 00:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that link! You have no idea how much that article means to me. I have had a long fought "battle" with my father all my life as he contends that people are who they are based on their genetics and I have held steady on the environment theory. I always felt that genetics was just an excuse not to try to make a change in your life. He died two weeks ago and the night before, we were still discussing it. He had pretty much won the argument that night.. until this article. I hope he saw me reading it;)-- Dematt 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Your revert here shows admirable restraint: "OMG, I don't know what else to say...." I doubt I would have been so gentle! While I agree with some of Mccready's skeptical views, I find his lack of team spirit quite disconcerting, so I can't even defend the guy when I think he's right! He swoops in and edits extremely boldly, and doesn't even show a cooperative spirit by working together with the rest of us and discussing it on the talk page. That is very problematic. Right or wrong edit, it's still wrong to do it that way. Wikipedia should have a policy that forbids editing articles without discussing the edits on the talk page. It would save alot of edit warring and 3rr violations. The collaborative efforts of editors with opposing personal viewpoints helps to make sure that all viewpoints get represented in a NPOV way, for the benefit of readers, and the editors themselves. I find it to be an educational experience doing this, and only wish I had more time between patients to do it. (I could do without the personal attacks and lack of assuming good faith, though.....) Keep up the good work. -- Fyslee 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hughgr,
I have a comment about your edit here, using this edit summary:
Here is the original before you removed the word "alleged," (which I will highlight here):
Here is your newer version:
Actually it's not enough to just say "believe," because "believe" and "alleged" refer to two different subjects (in different parts of the sentence). The two subjects, which are both disputed, are:
Only saying believe leaves the reader with the impression that these "misalignments" actually exist (to the degree, frequency, and severity) that is implied by chiropractors' use of the term " vertebral subluxation." We know that their existence in this manner is one of the key disagreements between chiropractic and the rest of the medical world. To ensure that this disagreement is noted, the word "alleged" (or some such qualifier) needs to be there. Without the qualifier, VS sneaks in "under the radar," as an undisputed fact. The only way to keep this lead NPOV (and possibly keep Mccready away from it) is to include the qualifier.
I suspect that Dematt recognized the crux of the matter when he reverted his edit here.
In the interest of congeniality, and to show my respect for you, I'd like to reach an agreement on this here, and then let you make a similar revert yourself (if I can convince you.....;-). -- Fyslee 08:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! Good one. Well, he'll be back, so we need to take that into account.
"Termed" is perfectly fine. Sounds nice. I have thought of another possibility to solve a continual problem - using "believe" as above, and adding a "skeptic's disclaimer at the bottom of the lead. This idea isn't totally new. Here's a try:
This sentence doesn't get into dementing every single disputed word in the lead. It leaves the details to the relevant parts of the article, where references can be provided. That has been a large part of the revert warring in the lead. Mccready keeps wanting to dement every single questionable item, right in the lead. I feel that destroys the flow of the lead, and makes for rather weird reading. Making a NPOV lead, without stating as fact the items mentioned, but stating as fact what chiropractors believe, and then tacking on the skeptic's disclaimer above, might solve the problem. I think the rest of us can live with it, so we just need to get him to accept the idea. -- Fyslee 20:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're getting into semantics and making the situation more confusing than it should be. The position of the vertebra may be stablized in position B, but due to Wolf's law and Davis' Law, may return to postion A. Things such as the age of the patient, and how long has the misalignment been there must be factored in. I think your being derogatory when you say something that exists in everyone from birth to death. No one says that, but I have heard "most" used.-- Hughgr 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Help defend my good edits. It takes more time than it's worth to protect other good edits otherwise. There is no reason to remove Kinsinger based on steth's or anyone else's bile. There are good reasons as you know to include Pseudoscience. Prove to me I'm not wasting my breath on you. It takes two to tango. Mccready 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in your thoughts here, if you haven't already. TheDoctorIsIn 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I looked over the NBCE page and it looked really good. I think you did a great job and considering you have the reference at the bottom of the page, it shouldn't need to be referenced unless someone questions it. Good Job! -- Dematt 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about adding something to the CCE page, too, but then I saw that the entire CCE site is copyrighted. I don't think that Dr.Rick could do anything that WP would accept, because they would go back to that site and see the copyright info. It would look professional though. We can at least be looking for some professional looking pictures or logos. -- Dematt 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Come on over - Dematts ChiroPractice page-- Dematt 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Check it out again! -- Dematt 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Take a break and enjoy that great nature up there. I'd love to live there. Are you a hunter or fisherman? I've lived in Greenland and went hunting and fishing often, shooting four reindeer in one day once, and three in one day a couple other times, including the very first day I ever hunted big game, two weeks after arriving. I even caught seven big trout the first day I tried using a fishing pole, one week after arriving. My last trout adventure was with another guy. We caught 180 trout in four hours. Other times we'd sail out and catch 40-50 cod per man, and stop because we knew we'd have to prepare the catch for the freezer, and still get some sleep before going to work the next day. That's Greenland for you. Beginner's luck is guaranteed. You're fortunate that where you live there are forests, unlike Greenland, where the trees are more like bushes, except in the southern part, where they can grow to be a gargantuan 15 feet high! BTW, would it be possible for you to email me that file at sitemaster@quackfiles.com ? Fyslee
Did you know that Pasteur was a vitalist and died in 1895? -- Dematt 18:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
So first you come and get me, now you dissappear! There is still a lot of work to do here! Certainly there is nothing more important to do out there:) What, did you run away with my hooker and blow? -- Dematt 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hughgr, can you help with this one? You are good with the straight POV and I think it should be accurate for their purposes. -- Dematt 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding the Palmer College of Chiropractic article. -- Midnightcomm 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Hughgr! Good job on the chiro lead! I like it and it is much more inclusive. I knew you were out there somewhere:) -- Dematt 12:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right about the web site! I'm not sure I have the time for a blog, though. Why would anybody want to hear what I had to say? I'm also afraid I'd get too much hate mail;) -- Dematt 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I had "he deems" in that sentence but then removed it as I thought the quotes were sufficient. lol. Matters not. Jance 05:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you see his latest? Alleged Copyright Violation
Unless anyone can actually provide any evidence of a copyright violation, I'm going to remove the notice. I'll give y'all 48 hours to come up with any reason why I can't quote small portions of a web site under fair use. --Curtis Bledsoe 01:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Jance 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Hughgr. This is a difficult situation, and I don't know what the answer is. It may take several of us to appeal for help, if consensus does not prove sufficient and the article continues to be written/reverted by one editor. It looks like we already have a 'bipartisan' group to do so -- "pro-Barrett", "neutral-barrett" and "anti-Barrett". Well, I haven't seen an anti-Barrett yet weigh in on this yet, but I can't imagine they would appreciate it either. Jance 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The copyright tag needs to be readded, with the websites the material was copied from. Jance 08:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for making a positive edit to this article. This is an example of how working WITH someone instead of against them can improve articles around here. -- Curtis Bledsoe 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed this. The section Curtis added was POV, and irrelevant to the issue in this case. It was not even legally correct as to the issue at bar, and it is not relevant to why this case is notable. At all. Jance 07:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you weigh in "agree" or "disagree" under NCAHF? I don't know if you are interested in this, but we are trying to build a consensus that Curtis' long edits are not acceptable in a Wiki article, whether or not it is a copyright vio. Thanks. Jance 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Care to weigh in and vote here? Levine2112 22:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you ever work? -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hughgr
I'd like to discuss some valid concerns I have over the chiro wiki, however, I cannot seem to tak to you directly (IM, email). Please get back to me.
Please do not remove redlinks "because they look like crap". Redlinks are there for a reason. If you really have to edit war about something as trivial and basic as this, you may want to refrain from doing so until you have learned more about the way Wikipedia works. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Please activate your email or email me. -- Fyslee/ talk 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get a discussion going over at the Quackery article about the Notable People Accused of Quackery section of the article. The section keeps getting removed so I'm trying to get a dialogue going about the usefulness of this section. Come on over and join in :-) Elhector 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you reverted Mccready's edit on those pages. Do you know this editor well? He has recently requested I use talk pages before reverting, but he reverts edits and has 0 edits on the CAM talk page. I'm a little confused by his editing style. I left him a note here. [5] Anthon01 ( talk) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Anthony, your concerns about that user's editing style are legitimate. We are both skeptics but he is one whose confrontational style I definitely take exception to. ( His block log.) In spite of that, his user page is informative and I basically agree with most of it. Other editors with similar types of problems are QuackGuru and the now banned User talk:KrishnaVindaloo. You're lucky you never met KV! ( His block log.) The three of them share many qualities, but are still a bit different. They make skeptics ashamed to be skeptics....;-( It is definitely possible to be right in the wrong way. At Wikipedia, one's personal POV can be ever so right, but one's lack of collaborative style can exclude one from the fellowship because it is disruptive and does more harm than good. I guess that's a balance we all have to work for. The best articles are written through the collaborative and friendly efforts of editors who do hold opposing POV. They understand NPOV and recognize that the opinions represented by editors holding opposing POV must be included, and they should be enabled, not hindered, as long as their editing follows the rules here. User:Dematt is a model in that regard. A chiropractor, gentleman, and great Wikipedian who really understands NPOV and how to write for the enemy. I wish he would return full time and become an admin. Unfortunately we have pretty much lost him to Citizendium. Our loss, their gain. -- Fyslee / talk 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hughgr, I'm just popping in as an uninvolved admin. I see that you are having a dispute with QuackGuru. We have a lot of suggestions for dealing with disputes at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and if I can help answer any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. One of the first things that we suggest, is trying to work things out at an article talkpage, or via user talkpage comments. If there is a disagreement with QuackGuru (or any editor), I recommend simply trying to work things out in good faith, to see if it is possible to find a meeting of the minds. As such, it's not really a good idea to tell someone to stay off your talkpage, since the talkpage is one of the first lines of communication. As long as QuackGuru is leaving comments that are civil, and relevant to your mutual work on the encyclopedia, he is allowed to do so. Just as you are allowed to post polite comments on his talkpage in return. Thanks, and let me know if I can be of any other assistance, El on ka 22:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
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.
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.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. Shell babelfish 08:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - I am notifying you because you participated in the original AfD. DigitalC ( talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Universal intelligence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal intelligence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy ( Help!) 01:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Just to welcome you. Hope you see that people aren't the unreasonable bigots that they can sometimes seem to be at first sight. Thanks for taking it gently on the chiropractic page - most pages on WP don't arouse such feelings, but then most won't be accessed so often either. Please don't be put off from adding to the article - just go for it, adding is always less of a problem than deleting, because deleting is taking away other people's work. Adding gives something fresh to think about and the intent will generally be to help improve. Gleng 21:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The Mediation Cabal
You are a disputant in a case listed under
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases.
We invite you to be a mediator in a different case.
Please read
How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~
-- Fasten 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your help in maintaining some neutrality against all the anti-chiropractic emotion. You have brought up some very valid points. You deserve a break. Looking forward to your return.
Barrett figured out that if it is about subjects he hates, by creating another website he can appear to be the expert. I have already raised the issue that it is un-Wikipedian of Fyslee to sprinkle Barrett's links throughout WP. A bit of a conflict since he has a close personal relatioinship with him, not to mention being his (Barrett's) assistant webmaster. I wonder how many links of Barrett's Fyslee has added to WP. That would make an interesting study in itself, wouldn't it?
Enjoy your tea. Thanks Steth 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Chiropractic. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. and please remember that to state that there is no scientific evidence to support Chirporactic is both correct and representative of the scientific consensus (per WP:NPOV). But well done for deciding to try compromise wording instead, I'm sure that with a bit of ingenuity a suitable lead can be written. Just zis Guy you know? 20:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hughr, I found this and am not fully comfortable with the wording. I would appreciate any suggestions/changes you might recommend. Mass Marketing Don't forget to see the Talk page. Thanks Steth 10:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hugh, you asked why we couldn't, in writing the article on chiropractic, advocate that further research be done. Check WP:NOT and if you have further questions I'd be happy to help. Mccready 06:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, doctor. I know that it must be frustrating for you to see the slow development of the Chiropractic article. Your patience is much appreciated. I do think we may have reached some consensus on the first two sentences below, but I was wondering if you might have some comments on whether the third one is accurately stated:
Actually, AED did invite you:) See below.-- Dematt 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Cheers! - AED 07:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2006 (UTC)
I've been diverted for a while so my comment here might be outdated - if so sorry for wasting your time. I have come across a number of heavyweight recommendations that further research is needed, maybe the resolution is to quote one of these - then its not our view, we're just reporting on others views. I'll try to retrieve these, will take me a little time to get back into the flow here though. Gleng 12:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As you can imagine, the shear bulk of information is awesome and I have just finished the next two paragraphs but have to get the references right before I bring it out. If I bring it out too soon, it gets chopped up before I have time to get the main idea out. Even then it may get demolished. I'm trying to keep it NPOV and just the facts without regard to bias on either side. It's coming out soon. Hang in there, then I'll need everybody's help to fine tune it and then protect it from the sharkfest (AED's well chosen words). I think everybody here has good intentions, though some misguided. Keep a level head and be sure to think for yourself. Your enthusiasm is enheartening and helps to keep me going. -- Dematt 02:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Hugh, I have been unfailingly polite to you and helpful. Were you referring to me as a troll when I asked Levine for evidence of his claim? If so, your comment was not in the spirit of a good wikipedian and may reflect a certain frustration on your part. Please try to maintain good relations in your discussions with users who are committed to producing the world's best encyclopedia without POV. Mccready 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hughgr, I want your input for the next part of the history concerning BJ Palmer. Come to this site -- Dematt 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Concerning your last edit... That was sooo awesome:)-- Dematt 06:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Hughgr, yeah, I know how you feel about the lead. But, I don't see any real problem with including asthma and migraine and anything else. I see people like these everyday and have similar results as you. Yeah, I treat them for back pain and they tell me their bladder symptoms that their MD diagnsoed years ago go away. These patients come back because of their bladders not their backs. Because the science is not there, you and I don't go yelling it across the hilltops, but when it does...
The thing I am waiting to see is if Mccready or Arthur revert. Then we'll try something else. Keep kicking!-- Dematt 19:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Hughr, Just thought "whose aims are" sounded a little more educated and more professional. Steth 20:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I tried to get rid of the "aim" word a long time ago. Mccready put it in and kept reverting it back.-- Dematt 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Your DD quote was an awesome find! Finally something that didn't make him sound ignorant:) I also like you're changes on VS. Hope they hold up:) -- Dematt 12:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hughgr, did that quote come from "The Chiropractic Adjuster" or "The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic" or is it in both the magazine and the book? I may have referenced it wrong on the chiro page. If not, you can use the same source on the VS page. -- Dematt 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! This is great. You have really cleaned it up and covered all concepts. The pictures are great and they are public domain so you are fine because they were before 1923 in the US and the copyright has expired. You probably need to state your sources for the list of functional types of subluxations otherwise it looks like it is your opinion of what subluxations are and you are an editor - not a chiro:) (You are not supposed to know this stuff - you are just documenting it). Otherwise, skeptics will eat it up, so document your sources. Expect some changes from other editors, usually their POV helps you see things that you didn't think of before, so don't get upset, just keep building!!!! Don't you just love it:) -- Dematt 00:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that link! You have no idea how much that article means to me. I have had a long fought "battle" with my father all my life as he contends that people are who they are based on their genetics and I have held steady on the environment theory. I always felt that genetics was just an excuse not to try to make a change in your life. He died two weeks ago and the night before, we were still discussing it. He had pretty much won the argument that night.. until this article. I hope he saw me reading it;)-- Dematt 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Your revert here shows admirable restraint: "OMG, I don't know what else to say...." I doubt I would have been so gentle! While I agree with some of Mccready's skeptical views, I find his lack of team spirit quite disconcerting, so I can't even defend the guy when I think he's right! He swoops in and edits extremely boldly, and doesn't even show a cooperative spirit by working together with the rest of us and discussing it on the talk page. That is very problematic. Right or wrong edit, it's still wrong to do it that way. Wikipedia should have a policy that forbids editing articles without discussing the edits on the talk page. It would save alot of edit warring and 3rr violations. The collaborative efforts of editors with opposing personal viewpoints helps to make sure that all viewpoints get represented in a NPOV way, for the benefit of readers, and the editors themselves. I find it to be an educational experience doing this, and only wish I had more time between patients to do it. (I could do without the personal attacks and lack of assuming good faith, though.....) Keep up the good work. -- Fyslee 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hughgr,
I have a comment about your edit here, using this edit summary:
Here is the original before you removed the word "alleged," (which I will highlight here):
Here is your newer version:
Actually it's not enough to just say "believe," because "believe" and "alleged" refer to two different subjects (in different parts of the sentence). The two subjects, which are both disputed, are:
Only saying believe leaves the reader with the impression that these "misalignments" actually exist (to the degree, frequency, and severity) that is implied by chiropractors' use of the term " vertebral subluxation." We know that their existence in this manner is one of the key disagreements between chiropractic and the rest of the medical world. To ensure that this disagreement is noted, the word "alleged" (or some such qualifier) needs to be there. Without the qualifier, VS sneaks in "under the radar," as an undisputed fact. The only way to keep this lead NPOV (and possibly keep Mccready away from it) is to include the qualifier.
I suspect that Dematt recognized the crux of the matter when he reverted his edit here.
In the interest of congeniality, and to show my respect for you, I'd like to reach an agreement on this here, and then let you make a similar revert yourself (if I can convince you.....;-). -- Fyslee 08:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! Good one. Well, he'll be back, so we need to take that into account.
"Termed" is perfectly fine. Sounds nice. I have thought of another possibility to solve a continual problem - using "believe" as above, and adding a "skeptic's disclaimer at the bottom of the lead. This idea isn't totally new. Here's a try:
This sentence doesn't get into dementing every single disputed word in the lead. It leaves the details to the relevant parts of the article, where references can be provided. That has been a large part of the revert warring in the lead. Mccready keeps wanting to dement every single questionable item, right in the lead. I feel that destroys the flow of the lead, and makes for rather weird reading. Making a NPOV lead, without stating as fact the items mentioned, but stating as fact what chiropractors believe, and then tacking on the skeptic's disclaimer above, might solve the problem. I think the rest of us can live with it, so we just need to get him to accept the idea. -- Fyslee 20:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you're getting into semantics and making the situation more confusing than it should be. The position of the vertebra may be stablized in position B, but due to Wolf's law and Davis' Law, may return to postion A. Things such as the age of the patient, and how long has the misalignment been there must be factored in. I think your being derogatory when you say something that exists in everyone from birth to death. No one says that, but I have heard "most" used.-- Hughgr 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Help defend my good edits. It takes more time than it's worth to protect other good edits otherwise. There is no reason to remove Kinsinger based on steth's or anyone else's bile. There are good reasons as you know to include Pseudoscience. Prove to me I'm not wasting my breath on you. It takes two to tango. Mccready 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in your thoughts here, if you haven't already. TheDoctorIsIn 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I looked over the NBCE page and it looked really good. I think you did a great job and considering you have the reference at the bottom of the page, it shouldn't need to be referenced unless someone questions it. Good Job! -- Dematt 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about adding something to the CCE page, too, but then I saw that the entire CCE site is copyrighted. I don't think that Dr.Rick could do anything that WP would accept, because they would go back to that site and see the copyright info. It would look professional though. We can at least be looking for some professional looking pictures or logos. -- Dematt 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Come on over - Dematts ChiroPractice page-- Dematt 23:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Check it out again! -- Dematt 20:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Take a break and enjoy that great nature up there. I'd love to live there. Are you a hunter or fisherman? I've lived in Greenland and went hunting and fishing often, shooting four reindeer in one day once, and three in one day a couple other times, including the very first day I ever hunted big game, two weeks after arriving. I even caught seven big trout the first day I tried using a fishing pole, one week after arriving. My last trout adventure was with another guy. We caught 180 trout in four hours. Other times we'd sail out and catch 40-50 cod per man, and stop because we knew we'd have to prepare the catch for the freezer, and still get some sleep before going to work the next day. That's Greenland for you. Beginner's luck is guaranteed. You're fortunate that where you live there are forests, unlike Greenland, where the trees are more like bushes, except in the southern part, where they can grow to be a gargantuan 15 feet high! BTW, would it be possible for you to email me that file at sitemaster@quackfiles.com ? Fyslee
Did you know that Pasteur was a vitalist and died in 1895? -- Dematt 18:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
So first you come and get me, now you dissappear! There is still a lot of work to do here! Certainly there is nothing more important to do out there:) What, did you run away with my hooker and blow? -- Dematt 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hughgr, can you help with this one? You are good with the straight POV and I think it should be accurate for their purposes. -- Dematt 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding the Palmer College of Chiropractic article. -- Midnightcomm 00:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Hughgr! Good job on the chiro lead! I like it and it is much more inclusive. I knew you were out there somewhere:) -- Dematt 12:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right about the web site! I'm not sure I have the time for a blog, though. Why would anybody want to hear what I had to say? I'm also afraid I'd get too much hate mail;) -- Dematt 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I had "he deems" in that sentence but then removed it as I thought the quotes were sufficient. lol. Matters not. Jance 05:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you see his latest? Alleged Copyright Violation
Unless anyone can actually provide any evidence of a copyright violation, I'm going to remove the notice. I'll give y'all 48 hours to come up with any reason why I can't quote small portions of a web site under fair use. --Curtis Bledsoe 01:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Jance 01:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Hughgr. This is a difficult situation, and I don't know what the answer is. It may take several of us to appeal for help, if consensus does not prove sufficient and the article continues to be written/reverted by one editor. It looks like we already have a 'bipartisan' group to do so -- "pro-Barrett", "neutral-barrett" and "anti-Barrett". Well, I haven't seen an anti-Barrett yet weigh in on this yet, but I can't imagine they would appreciate it either. Jance 04:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The copyright tag needs to be readded, with the websites the material was copied from. Jance 08:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for making a positive edit to this article. This is an example of how working WITH someone instead of against them can improve articles around here. -- Curtis Bledsoe 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed this. The section Curtis added was POV, and irrelevant to the issue in this case. It was not even legally correct as to the issue at bar, and it is not relevant to why this case is notable. At all. Jance 07:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you weigh in "agree" or "disagree" under NCAHF? I don't know if you are interested in this, but we are trying to build a consensus that Curtis' long edits are not acceptable in a Wiki article, whether or not it is a copyright vio. Thanks. Jance 00:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Care to weigh in and vote here? Levine2112 22:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you ever work? -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hughgr
I'd like to discuss some valid concerns I have over the chiro wiki, however, I cannot seem to tak to you directly (IM, email). Please get back to me.
Please do not remove redlinks "because they look like crap". Redlinks are there for a reason. If you really have to edit war about something as trivial and basic as this, you may want to refrain from doing so until you have learned more about the way Wikipedia works. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 08:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Please activate your email or email me. -- Fyslee/ talk 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to get a discussion going over at the Quackery article about the Notable People Accused of Quackery section of the article. The section keeps getting removed so I'm trying to get a dialogue going about the usefulness of this section. Come on over and join in :-) Elhector 21:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you reverted Mccready's edit on those pages. Do you know this editor well? He has recently requested I use talk pages before reverting, but he reverts edits and has 0 edits on the CAM talk page. I'm a little confused by his editing style. I left him a note here. [5] Anthon01 ( talk) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Anthony, your concerns about that user's editing style are legitimate. We are both skeptics but he is one whose confrontational style I definitely take exception to. ( His block log.) In spite of that, his user page is informative and I basically agree with most of it. Other editors with similar types of problems are QuackGuru and the now banned User talk:KrishnaVindaloo. You're lucky you never met KV! ( His block log.) The three of them share many qualities, but are still a bit different. They make skeptics ashamed to be skeptics....;-( It is definitely possible to be right in the wrong way. At Wikipedia, one's personal POV can be ever so right, but one's lack of collaborative style can exclude one from the fellowship because it is disruptive and does more harm than good. I guess that's a balance we all have to work for. The best articles are written through the collaborative and friendly efforts of editors who do hold opposing POV. They understand NPOV and recognize that the opinions represented by editors holding opposing POV must be included, and they should be enabled, not hindered, as long as their editing follows the rules here. User:Dematt is a model in that regard. A chiropractor, gentleman, and great Wikipedian who really understands NPOV and how to write for the enemy. I wish he would return full time and become an admin. Unfortunately we have pretty much lost him to Citizendium. Our loss, their gain. -- Fyslee / talk 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hughgr, I'm just popping in as an uninvolved admin. I see that you are having a dispute with QuackGuru. We have a lot of suggestions for dealing with disputes at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and if I can help answer any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. One of the first things that we suggest, is trying to work things out at an article talkpage, or via user talkpage comments. If there is a disagreement with QuackGuru (or any editor), I recommend simply trying to work things out in good faith, to see if it is possible to find a meeting of the minds. As such, it's not really a good idea to tell someone to stay off your talkpage, since the talkpage is one of the first lines of communication. As long as QuackGuru is leaving comments that are civil, and relevant to your mutual work on the encyclopedia, he is allowed to do so. Just as you are allowed to post polite comments on his talkpage in return. Thanks, and let me know if I can be of any other assistance, El on ka 22:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
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.
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.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. Shell babelfish 08:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic controversy and criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - I am notifying you because you participated in the original AfD. DigitalC ( talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Universal intelligence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal intelligence until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy ( Help!) 01:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)