Thanks for your help. It's nice when someone else steps up to the plate and bats when someone who is supposedly an expert refuses to play. I guess he just can't deal with uncomfortable answers. I've noticed that he is equally evasive towards other editors who ask uncomfortable questions. I have commented here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Brunton, Edmund Smith was also known as a homeopathic physician. I'm not clear what was wrong with the reference that I provided. You questioned it here: [1] Here's solid evidence that he was a homeopath; this shows that he was a member of the British Homeopathic Society [2] Because this is a minor point, can I ask you to make this change? As you may know, I cannot at present do editing on homeopathy pages, and although this hasn't been deemed as such, I would rather not edit here. DanaUllman ^Talk 04:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I can email you that this article, but you haven't hooked up your email. If you email me (I'm hooked up), I'll send it. DanaUllman ^Talk 03:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

You said it was available online. Couldn't you just post the link so that everyone involved in the homeopathy talk page can see it? Brunton ( talk) 09:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

My error. I thought it was available online but it isn't (without payment). My offer still stands. DanaUllman ^Talk 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Per [3]

I'd be willing to believe that was a misreading if Ullman's quote of Scientizzle didn't remove six words that change the meaning.

He quotes Scientizzle as saying "I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic.... I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms." then adds "It is interesting how you chose to not give the entire quote from your posting at that same time."

However, the actual quote is:

I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic. (Even at List of homeopathic preparations, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.[ref]" statement)

There is no way that that's a misreading - he had to intentionally edit out words to change the meaning, at the same time as berating Scientizzle for not giving the whole quote. That's outright trolling. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I saw that you had made some edits to this article within the last year. Unfortunately, it was brought to my attention that the article had earlier been a copyright violation, so I reverted back to the pre-copyvio version. This has had the unfortunate effect of removing your subsequent edits, so I thought I would let you know that you might want to rewrite them, or expand the article. Best regards, — BillC ^talk 14:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Brunton, thanks for the heads-up. I took a look the contribution history of who'd amde that edit; he seemed to have gone on a spree of copyright violations (and bad edits) a little over a year ago before ceasing editing altogether. Most were caught and reverted, but you found one that hadn't. I went through the remainder of his article-space edits and those which weren't reverted were Corporate performance management, Camarines, God of War II, and Making Globalization Work. Some of those have since been so heavily edited that it is not really practical to revert, and besides, there is very little of his material left in them. I'll have a look at these if there's anything that can be done.

Your edit is fine; there is no need to contact the three intervening editors in this case.

Is J.B. Hutto better known by his initials? Like A. A. Milne? I'm only asking because a biographical article would normally have a person's proper name (i.e Joseph Hutto) unless they are better known by their initials -- such as A. A. Milne or e. e. cummings. If so, and you decide you want to rename the article, this is easily done by a move.

Regards, — BillC ^talk 21:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi... sorry for the delay -- currently working overseas. I would have said Johnny Young (blues musician) seemed more in line with convention, but I wouldn't worry about it at all. The redirects are in place, so your all bases are covered. (From my last sentence, you may be able to guess where I now am.) — BillC ^talk 13:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Great quotation! I've got to see that in print! Henrydoktorski ( talk) 20:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply

"it added the time and date when I signed but not my username."

The most likely cause is that you accidentally typed 5 tildes instead of 4. ~~~~ gives you the signature you want; ~~~~~ gives you only the date and time stamp. - Nunh-huh 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I thought it might be something like that (although I was guessing not enough tildes - I now find that three gives name but no time/date). Thanks. Brunton ( talk) 09:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your suggests you may have a ref with current numbers. Could you state the number and cite the statement please? LeadSongDog come howl 18:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You're being discussed here, in regards to that Sheree Silver articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I upset you with any of the comments I made, I was just confirming the consensus was read correctly. Spring12 ( talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Baby_Gloria

Which reference are you referring to? -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I've replied at Talk:Homeopathy. Brunton ( talk) 07:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Please explain how this edit is going to help Wikipedia. I think the User talk:Avathaar page should only be concerned with discussion of specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia articles. What do you think? -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 15:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your reply. I regret having copied over to User talk:Avathaar his comment about past edits. I think it will be most constructive if "Dr.Jhingaadey" is not distracted from the goal of trying to make specific suggestions for how to improve the content of Wikipedia articles. However, if you have other issues (such as those related to his past editing behavior) that you want to discuss, then I suggest that you start a new page section on his talk page just for that purpose. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

A thread has been started to discuss this whole matter:

• Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return

If you have any interest in the matter, you are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Your analysis is flawed. You cannot categorically rule out mentioning studies that "Dr. J" might suggest. Doing so only shows your bias and unwillingness to listen to suggestions from other editors. " Studies of this type are really not helpful" <-- I do not agree. The Homeopathy article should provide an account of the popularity of homeopathy among patients and doctors. Studies that demonstrate greater satisfaction among patients who use homeopathy than among those who use conventional medicine help explain the popularity of homeopathy. This should be mentioned in Wikipedia. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

"including individual studies will not add any reliable information to the article" <-- What if one published study ("cherry picked", as you say) reported results for a homeopathic therapy as performed by trained homeopaths while another study claimed to involve homeopathy but it reported results obtained by people who have no training in homeopathy and who do not actually follow the practices used by homeopaths? It might be instructive and useful for Wikipedia to compare the methods, results and conclusions of two such individual studies. I can think of many possible reasons for mentioning individual studies and I do not agree that "including individual studies will not add any reliable information to the article". -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Your last statement sounds like a recipe for an OR and SYNTH violation. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• I do not have a copy of " Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review" and the abstract is not very clear, but the abstract of that article seems to suggest that there was an observed placebo effect for what they call "individualized homeopathy". I'd like to see a copy of the article and see if the conditions being treated in the reviewed studies were of a type likely to show a placebo effect, if the treatments were actually performed by trained homeopaths and what the assessment methods were. The Wikipedia article about placebo cites studies which reached the conclusion that exactly how a placebo is delivered can influence the placebo response. I have no idea if there exist published studies of the type I suggested. That was just the first example that came to mind as a refutation of you blanket claim that no reliable information can come from discussing individual studies. It might be useful to show Wikipedia readers that only some studies claiming to use homeopathic medicine actually use homeopathy, particularly if published results showed a difference between 1) patient response to homeopathy and 2) patient response to therapy that is only called "homeopathy" by doctors who do not actually practice homeopathy. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You mentioned "the homoeopathic community" and "the homoeopathic establishment". In the context of clinical trials it seems to me that we must be dealing with a select subset of "the homoeopathic community". It seems to me that clinical studies should involve medical professionals providing health care according to research protocols approved by human subjects research boards. For example, a clinical study of heart surgery for the treatment of a particular type of heart defect would necessarily have to concern itself with the professional qualifications of the doctors who perform the surgery. It would not be very meaningful to say that the findings of a heart surgery study were "negative" if the doctors performing the surgeries for the study had no professional training in heart surgery. Within "the homoeopathic community" there are medical doctors who have professional training in homeopathy as part of their medical education. It would not take much effort for someone publishing a clinical study of a homeopathic medical therapy to describe the professional qualifications of the medical practitioners involved in the study. In my experience in the USA, contact with patients involved in clinical research studies cannot be initiated unless the medical professionals who will be involved in the study are specified and approved by a review board. I'd be interested to know what professional training in homeopathic medicine Peter Fisher (and others in involved in that particular study) have had. It would also be interesting to poll 100 randomly selected recent graduates of medical schools who have received training in homeopathy and ask them if that Calendula Officinalis treatment should be counted as a homeopathic therapy. It may well be that there are different "schools of thought" with respect to the practice of homeopathy and the answer would depend on which medical school a homeopath received their education from. It may be that "the homoeopathic establishment" is a fictional concept...Peter Fisher might be from a "homeopathic school of thought" that would be totally rejected by other homeopaths. I suspect that any meta-analysis taking an uncritical approach to deciding what constitutes homeopathic medical practice cannot reach any meaningful conclusions about homeopathic medicine. Some of these issues are discussed in Homeopathy – what are the active ingredients? An exploratory study using the UK Medical Research Council's framework for the evaluation of complex interventions where it is suggested that "The empathic nature of homeopathic consultations is often cited as the reason why patients appear to respond". This article includes an interesting claim about "the homeopathic community": "A specific part of the process of homeopathic care is the way in which Lifeworld is matched with what is known about homeopathic remedies. This matching is, in the eyes of the homeopathic community, the most important of all active ingredients." Do most clinical studies of homeopathy take this "active ingredient" into account? Their conclusion ("We conclude therefore that homeopathy can justifiably be considered a complex intervention. This should be taken into account in the design of clinical trials") makes sense to me. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 02:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply

For your enjoyment:

• Mitchell and Webb: If Homeopathy Beats Science

• "Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it."

-- Brangifer ( talk) 16:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

That s really funny!!.-- JeanandJane ( talk) 05:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I too loved this segment. Heck, I can laugh at myself and fellow homeopaths (and please kick me if I miss a good opportunity to do so). DanaUllman ^Talk 02:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Believe it or not....the following also applies to most other editors who hold opposing opinions here. I suspect that if we were discussing things face to face over a good beer or red Zinfandel, we'd probably enjoy each other's company and have a good time. That's one of the disadvantages of editing on the internet. It's so damn impersonal. When we can laugh at ourselves, that's a healthy sign. When we can't do that, look out! Cheers to you. Assuming you like red wine, have you tried Sin Zin? Alexander Valley Vinyards is only about 90 min north of you, depending on the traffic. You're privileged to live so close to such great wine country. I have always loved driving up the Silverado Trail whenever I'm in the area, or eating at the Rutherford Grill. It's a beautiful area, especially now when the grapes are ripening. Lake Berryessa, a tour of Beringer Vinyards beautiful buildings, all wonderful sights. I take my wine in non-homeopathic doses ;-) Brangifer ( talk) 08:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, I don't understand why you are reverting my edits? I've provided my contributions with references. There is really no neutral reason for this, as they simply provide the mirror view when writing about A. Campbell's critical review of G. Vithoulkas' book that appeared in the British Journal of Homoepathy. G. Vithoulkas responded to this review, and it appeared in the same British Journal of Homoepathy. If you mention A. Campbell's critical review, you must also mention G. Vithoulkas' response and defense for balance, regardless of your personal beliefs on the topic.

Comments?

Dbrisinda ( talk) 11:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

First, thanx for your rapid response to my concern about that strange sentence about miasms. Because I have not watched this article until very recently, do you have any idea how that "fact" got there?...and do you have any comment on the RS status of that non-peer review site? DanaUllman ^Talk 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I suppose someone must have had a reason for putting it there. On reflection, I've restored it with a fact tag to give an opportunity for someone to find a source for it. As for the source cited, while it doesn't appear to support that particular assertion (it is always possible that the source has changed since it was added) it appears to be on the website the school of medicine of an accredited university (correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not particularly familiar with the American academic system). I suspect that that gives it a certain degree of authority. Brunton ( talk) 10:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I have just commented here [ [4]] on the falsity of this statement and on the fact that it was un-sourced at the reference you provided. And I welcome you and Shoemaker and anyone else to double-check or triple-check my contentions, as I think we should all do with each other to create accuracy. DanaUllman ^Talk 23:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Please, if you're going to do things based on his say-so, double and triple check his claims first. He misrepresents sources appallingly, if it suits him. (example: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#1c: Ignoring Linde.27s retraction.2C and Linde 1997. Ullman as a tendentious editor.3B Ullman insists others AGF while refusing to hold the same courtesy to others.) Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a general warning, really, because you're the main person dealing with him. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 22:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Lets put it that way: It would be a lie if an article declares that the collective evidence does not support homeopathy 's efficacy since you have an exceptional source reporting the following: "Homeopathy is a popular type of complementary medicine. It is however controversial because although there is some evidence that it is not just a placebo, no one understands how it could work."-- JeanandJane ( talk) 23:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The statement "there is some evidence that it is not just a placebo" does not contradict the statement "the collective evidence does not support homeopathy's efficacy". Brunton ( talk) 01:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

If the fisrt is true ( according to the source ) then the second is at least misleading. Adlet called it white lies? I think.

Besides that it is edit out of the body of the article.-- JeanandJane ( talk) 03:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No, you are failing to understand the distinction between "some" and "all". For example, some birds are ducks, but it doesn't follow from that that the statement "most birds are not ducks" is misleading, or untrue. Brunton ( talk) 09:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your actions on the homeopathy talk page in defending science and wikipedia. Verbal chat 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You might not have seen this on the talk page, as it was buried in the flurry of voting. You cited a survey that was conducted in Scotland and had to do with physician referrals. But what do you think of the Astin (1998) paper which reported physician belief in the United States with respect to several CAM therapies, where 26% of physicians believed in the value of homeopathy, and 9% practiced it? Do you believe that this has no bearing on "fringe belief" status? Incidentally, from my review of the literature, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have some of the lowest homeopathic medicine use statistics in Europe. Dbrisinda ( talk) 10:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

There may be cultural differences in acceptance of homoeopathy in different countries, but from the talk page it appears that this argument has been overtaken by events. It would be interesting to know on what basis 26% "believed in the value" of homoeopathy. As a means of prescribing a placebo? As a means of getting hypochondriacs out of the office? Of the four main reasons for using CAM cited in the paper, two have no real indication of particular belief in CAM by the doctor: "patient's lack of response to conventional treatment" (AKA TEETH?) and "patient's request or preference" (note the results of the West Kent PCT research into usage of homoeopathy cited on the talk page). And, as usual with any apparently positive research regarding homoeopathy, we get a disclaimer: "Conclusions from this study are limited owing to the lack of large, representative national samples of physicians". Brunton ( talk) 08:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

26% belive in homeopathy... and "76 percent of [medical] believe in God" per a of Chicago study. At first I wondered why your wiped out my edtis at homeopaty, so checked your talk page to understand why. (Then I noticed the homeopathy talk page archives. Whew! Given the history, the article is wonderful.) HkFnsNGA ( talk) 07:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Brunton, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis on the homeopathy talk pages. You are one of few individuals on those pages that can make rational arguments on the points being discussed. But I would ask you, if you would, to speak with a few of the other editors, notably Yobal, Verbal, and perhaps one or two others, to refrain from irrational and obviously heavily biased edits and comments—this is extremely disruptive. I mean really! We both know that the placement of citations in the lead needs to occur after the statement they are intended to support. And instead, this absurd massaging of the text to include a "negative" qualification and then have the citations appear after it, is really quite ridiculous. Transparent is perhaps a better word. And I'm sure that if any arbitration examiner were to look at this activity objectively, they would come to the conclusion that certain individuals were attempting to mislead, and were not acting honestly, or in good faith.

I think I am operating in good faith here, as I think are you. We just happen to see things differently, but most importantly, we are prepared to discuss things rationally, presenting evidence to support our claims, using good reasons and sound arguments. Much of what some of these other editors contribute on these pages does not qualify as good reasons or sound arguments, and it is often highly irrational, illogical and clearly biased. Quite simply, I don't believe they are operating on the principle of good faith, although I've made every effort to assume they were. And I cordially ask you to redress this if you will, with a note, suggestion, or a comment, that will also have the beneficial effect of de-polarizing the talk pages.

I am fully prepared to accept the negative evidence against homeopathy, provided it is honestly communicated and supported, in a neutral manner that is worthy to be called "encyclopedic." I am not a homeopath, but I have a natural aversion to what I perceive to be heavy bias, especially when it's not supported with good reasons and sound arguments. Dbrisinda ( talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

If you're talking about putting references which state, "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias", "however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results", and "we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition" after the phrase "these studies are not definitive", then this would appear to be appropriate. They are clearly saying that the evidence is not definitive, and it would be misleading to imply that they aren't. Brunton ( talk) 20:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

So then you wouldn't object to modifying the first sentence of paragraph #3 lead to say: "Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence, though some evidence exists.^[references]"? Dbrisinda ( talk) 23:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

This is introducing needless repetition into the lead. The tail end of that statement is already included in the passage that you are objecting to the referencing of (and is implicit in the words "collective evidence" in the sentence you are proposing adding it to). Brunton ( talk) 06:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Many moons ago the homeopathy article stated the year when Hahnemann first used the term homeopathy. Not sure what year was given but it was probably way before 1808. Well, here is a quote from a very reliable source concerning that matter. "The name originally bestowed by Hahnemann on his system...(was) the doctrine of specifics," (Dudgeon, p.51) and "from 1796 to 1808 he employed almost exclusively the word specific to designate his system, and after the latter date we meet with the term homoeopathic." (Dudgeon, p.51) Hahnemann initially described homeopathy as "the doctrine of specifics." (Dudgeon, p.55) Robert Ellis Dudgeon, Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homoeopathy, London: Henry Turner & Co, 1853. Thought you might like to use this in the article sometime. regards Peter morrell 19:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, in the homeopathy article it says 1807, but the ref #172 to an article by M E Dean does not even mention the year 1807 (which is listed in the article), so where has that date cited in the article come from? It has no basis and should be removed from the article and replaced with 1808 as cited by Dr Dudgeon in the ref above, thankyou Peter morrell 07:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for putting the changes in as previously suggested. I will see what I can find for you re Kent and Hering; Dudgeon is without doubt the best source, but he is only online in google books or as a download. Will report back in due course, cheers Peter morrell 07:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Re your most recent questions, Dr C Hering was famous for:

• adding many new remedies and greatly expanding the materia medica (e.g. the Bushmaster snake, Lachesis)
• adding several new nosodes (e.g. Lyssin, from the saliva of rabid dog)
• he introduced the decimal or x scale of potency, widely used throughout the 19th century [5]

Dr J T Kent was famous for:

• use of very highest potencies: 10M, 50M, CM, DM, MM (along with others, not a shift he initiated)
• emphasised case totality, rather than local symptoms or named diseases
• emphasised vital force
• emphasised links to Swedenborgianism
• gave a detailed commentary on the Organon (his Lectures)
• gave seminal lectures on drug pictures of the materia medica with new emphasis on mentals
• had a lasting influence on UK and Swiss homeopathy (not much elsewhere)

Healing crisis -- I will come back to...I think you mean the "homeopathic aggravation;" if so, then once again Dudgeon is a good source.

Hans Burch Gram, a Danish physician, was the 1st US homeopath who emigrated to US in 1825, and not the one listed in the article [6] [7]...more cited stuff on all this as I get time. Peter morrell 07:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Have now added to the Samuel Hahnemann article a cited reference to the 1807 first mention of the word homeopathy. You may wish to transfer it to the Homeopathy article too. Re Hering, he was also responsible for Hering's law. Will try to find more on him at some point as time permits. regards Peter morrell 10:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, Brunton!

About your — respectable, no doubt! — [undo edition [08:58, 31 August 2009 Brunton (talk| contribs) (113,867 bytes) (Revert three edits which added text that largely duplicated what is already in the article, introduced potentially confusing technical language, and was unsourced (including a sizeable quotation)], I must explain this: "being or not being pro- homeopathy (data venia, Shakespeare), however I think that the additional data I have written there ( homeopathy) are not cause of confusion. Never did I want this. If you are (or not) pro-homeopathy (no criticism or irony here, please! — only dialectic argumentation), it seems to be reasonable that showing this...

"(...) Because successive dilutions are ordinarily centesimal ones, the following generalization is useful as presenting its mathematical form:

CH_x = 10 ^{– 2.X} (in decimal base), or, equivalently, CH_x = 100 ^{– X} (in centesimal base), wich express directly the centesimal dilution idea.

This expression connects both the scales: the Centesimal Hahnemannian (C or CH) and the Common Decimal scale (D or X) for representing homeopathic dilutions, as presented on the following table: (...)"

...makes the article better — don't you think so? According to or not, I am sure that you are doing the best. So, my respects.

EgídioCampos ^Diz! 17:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks good to me, and well-spotted. All of the additions subsequent to the copyvio edit seem to have been free from copyright themselves, and you've preserved them in the current version of the article. I'm taking a look at the other contributions from that editor to see if there are any other problems. He seems to have been long gone, so there is probably little point in leaving a note on his talk page or a notification at WP:CV. Regards, — BillC  ^talk 00:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Just heard some stuff from this guy, saw he had no page, so I created one. It's very light and cursory, but I noticed that one of your userpages linked to it, so I assume you may want to know it's been started. I used only 4 references, though I found a few more (gScholar had some good ones). If you get the urge, have at. I'll prolly peck away at it here and there...

Vulture19 ( talk) 00:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the response on this. As a believer in the WP:TIND view 2, so I'll be pecking away here and there, unless, of course, it gets prod'd... Vulture19 ( talk) 22:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you might be interested in the discussion about Ernst's paper and how to incorporate it into the introduction here. Ocaasi ( talk) 04:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC) reply

More discussion going on, this time about whether/how to incorporate sources which address the underlying/specific claims made by Ernst. Talk:Chiropractic#Proposed_edits_to_Safety Ocaasi ( talk) 02:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC) reply

If you subscribe to this change about Linde letter - thank you. You have prove you are a good sceptic. I m sure someone can add the rest and the correct citation.-- Konzept1933 ( talk) 21:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC) You are changing you mind all the time. I think you said you agreed to include somewhere or somehow the letter in the article. What happened?-- Konzept1933 ( talk) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Can you show me the diff where I said that? Brunton ( talk) 22:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

"It is a comment on the methodology of a specific paper and as such belongs, if anywhere, with discussion of that specific paper. Even there it needs to be given appropriate weight wrt its context. Brunton (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2010" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 ( talk • contribs)

I take it that you didn't notice the words "if anywhere" in that comment. Brunton ( talk) 23:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Not to mention it being a letter to the editor, and thus not a MEDRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. About User:BeatriceX -- Kleopatra ( talk) 11:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC) reply

A thought has just struck me. Only the other day, I opened a bottle of orange squash and I diluted some - and its thirst-quenching properties improved! It must be homeopathy! :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 12:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Per your edit comment: I can't chase it right now, but the FDA's definition of Homeopathic should support this statement. Iirc, it's 6X or more. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

That would be a 1 in 1,000,000 dilution. Weak enough for most substances to have no significant effects, but still with detectable amounts of the substance left. You need to get to 12C/24X to be reasonably sure there's none left. Brunton ( talk) 22:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• I accidentally deleted a comment of yours on the talk page of the Homeopathy article, in an edit conflict. I don't know how to properly restore your comment.
• Looking at the article and talk page history, you should win some kind of award for all the work you have done on that article... maybe a degree in homeopathy! ... just kidding, you really look like you have put in a tremendous amount of work trying to resolve things with so many different kinds of editors. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 21:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe that I can not make any suggestion to further improve the homeopathy article as it currently stands. Thank you for reading my extensive commentary and actually taking time to respond to all of it. It was much work, but I believe changes you made substantially improved the article. Thanks for you time. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 20:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Brunton, I noticed you edit on Phil of Sci related articles, and you have commented at the talk page of the bad faith article. So maybe you were reading mathematical philosophy stuff about ten years ago, too, where “bad faith” arises in a very important and “ethics busting” way. I thought maybe you might be able to help me come up with an understandable sentence or two about this. While “I do not no not a thing” about technical arguments in mathematical realism involving Mackie’s error theory of mathematical realism as it applies to ethics, I am not an expert by any means. About ten years ago, I recall that mathematical philosopher Crispin Wright complained that J. L. Mackie's view on mathematical realism relegates ALL discourse on eithics to ONLY be about “ bad faith”, a very restricted ethics indeed. A similar, but less formalized, discussion occured between analytic philosopher of ethics Philippa Foot and Fregean ontology's Alonzo Church about "bad faith", to which I was a witness, and the discussion made my head spin at that time. How can these ideas be explained in plain English, and in only a sentence or two? You can respond at the talk page of bad faith, where I am copying this request. HkFnsNGA ( talk) 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading File:Complete quartets with Sonny Clark.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I'd put a line of text into the summary box that had, on previous occasions when I've uploaded covers, automatically inserted the appropriate rationale etc, but it doesn't seem to have worked. I've edited the page to include rationale and licensing sections - is it OK now? Brunton ( talk) 13:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Now it's completely in order. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC) reply

PRENTISS (Stephen Fry) to CLIVE (Tom George): Stop showing glimmerings of intelligence, it's like finding caviar in a cheeseburger. ( Absolute Power) Acleron ( talk), 14:54, 30 December 2011‎

Looking through his editing history and reading the few comments on his talk page (he's pretty much telling everyone to “fuck off”, although he doesn't use that exact wording) I get the feeling that he's trying to get himself blocked. I'm not really sure how to handle this - I don't doubt he's well meaning but he's definitely becoming a pain on the homeopathy article. I don't want to go to ANI with this just yet and I doubt that WQA will do any good, so I'm unsure how to handle this. Any thoughts? -- Six words ( talk) 07:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Are we dealing with a sock of OM or SA? Same POV (many of which I favor), but same nasty and combative spirit. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I assume "SA" is ScienceApologist. Who is/was "OM"? Brunton ( talk) 08:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

SR does seem overly fond of the term NPOV - see again here. While the points about UNDUE, RS and FRINGE might be valid, I don't see a POV problem there either. Brunton ( talk) 08:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

OM = Orangemarlin. I hadn't thought of that but I suppose it's possible (I don't recall SA's style). There's no question that I share their POV quite often, but that doesn't mean it's OK to edit-war your preferred wording into or out of the article, and to revert when there's a talk page consensus like the one about the Swiss HTA is disruptive. -- Six words ( talk) 12:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure - OM seemed happy to participate on talk pages (that seems to be what he got into trouble about - I didn't know he was blocked until now) and so, as far as I remember, was SA. The current problem is that SR is reverting against consensus without any reference to the talk page. Since he says he won't engage on his own talk page either there doesn't seem to any way to communicate. Brunton ( talk) 12:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't understand your edit summary here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Oscillococcinum&curid=2015570&diff=495600710&oldid=495204159

Do you have more information or links? -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply

There was a discussion (continued here) on the Talk:Homeopathy page in which it was concluded that we couldn't use this paper because it has been withdrawn from the current version of the Cochrane database (see here and here). The same issue has recently come up again on the Talk:Homeopathy page, and an editor pointed out that the withdrawn paper was still being used as a source on the Oscillococcinum page, so I removed it and the text it referenced, which since it is a comment specifically about this review (although for some reason it implied that it was two separate reviews) is now unsupported. Brunton ( talk) 08:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, I found the link that contained the "Withdrawn" wording. -- Brangifer ( talk) 04:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is " Homeopathy". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  ^{operator /  talk} 19:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, Brunton. You have new messages at Crashdoom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Brunton. You have new messages at Zad68's talk page.
Message added 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. reply

Zad 68 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Otis Spann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter Horton ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 22:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC) reply

The best way to terminate a deadhorse argument is simply to stop responding. Otherwise, it's going to go on forever. Don't waste your time. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 12:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jimmy Forrest, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Swing and Andy Kirk ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, May I know what do you mean by adequately sourced, The references which I have quoted are peer reviewed medical journals from pubmed... Drpjkurian ( talk) 17:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for creating Jimmy Wilson (blues musician), Brunton!

Wikipedia editor Lstanley1979 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi - I corrected the error in the title for you, but otherwise, nice work.

To reply, leave a comment on Lstanley1979's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi, please, repeat the argument on the talk page. -- Pediainsight ( talk) 21:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC) reply

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Referring specifically to G. Edward Griffin. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Brunton, thanks for changing the plot to present tense, i know about MOS:PLOT, i don't know why i changed it all to read in the past, me bad

Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hai, could you please help copyediting this Indian film article Urumi (film). Article contains a lots of matter, but badly written. So need good copy editor to do some work. Requesting for your help. -- Charles Turing ( talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply

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) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello, Brunton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Brunton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, Brunton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Someone needs to add a section on the impacts of traditional chinese medicine on the environment, with a focus on the harvesting of endangered animals for these dubious cures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1384:43F7:1DFA:43DA:FAA7:4C88 ( talk) 18:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Brunton. I don't think we have interacted before, but I saw you copy edited some text I added at Homoepathy. Thanks for that.

As I am sure you are well aware I am working my way through the article at the moment and am about to come to the public opposition section. It is an odd section, one I have not seen in too many articles. I am not entirely sure what its purpose is. Much of the examples have been mentioned elsewhere in the article and even the ones that haven't have had equivalent examples mentioned (i.e. universities no longer offering courses). It doesn't have an introduction and seems to just be a list of examples where people have criticised or taken action against homeopathy.

I looked through the talk page for mentions of this section and see your name pop up a few times over the years. I was hoping you could give me some context as to what the intended purpose of this section is and how you think it could be improved. I am thinking key issues would be better integrated into other sections or if it must exist it needs some focus and flow. I know this should go through the talk, but just wanted to get some background before opening it up or boldly editing it. AIRcorn  (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Brunton, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, RAJIVVASUDEV ( talk) 10:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

May your Christmas be filled with miracles and beautiful time. Merry Christmas! RAJIVVASUDEV ( talk) 10:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Enja released this album in Germany. Justin Time released it in Canada. Do you know which one came out first?
Vmavanti ( talk) 21:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Vmavanti, I was going on the album’s article, the Allmusic ref given there, and the album’s entry in the Penguin guide, all of which say Justin Time. The copy I have on Justin Time doesn’t mention a release on Enja. The album was edited and mastered in Montreal, which also suggests Justin Time rather than Enja. I’ve also found another Allmusic page that gives a Justin Time “digital” release in 1999 and an Enja CD in 2000. Discogs shows the Enja release as “Copyright © – Justin Time Records Inc., Phonographic Copyright ℗ – Enja Records”, and the Justin Time one as copyright Justin Time for both, for what it’s worth. Brunton ( talk) 21:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

It's good to see you dig into the subject. Not everyone does. It certainly makes sense that recording in Montreal makes Justin Time the likely choice. After years of entering errors, which I still work to correct, I learned the hard way that, for whatever reason, the jazz albums at AllMusic have many mistakes. Wrong dates, wrong labels, wrong albums. I've seen unreliable photographs of covers. A photograph doesn't always determine the right date given that albums are released at different times in different countries. For jazz, Discogs.com is usually more reliable, though you can't use it in citations because it is crowd-sourced and I have seen mistakes at Discogs, too. At that site, it's helpful to look at look at every release of the album. Because this is the English-speaking Wikipedia, I favor albums released in the U.S. and U.K. because of the readers. With exceptions of course. Foreign musicians will often naturally sign with foreign labels, so I do the best I can. You know I have to decide somehow. Because jazz record collecting is a niche hobby, you sometimes find collectors use recording dates rather than release dates. Their interest is partially biographical: They like to see the continuity in a person's work. But I would like to see that interest explored in the body of the article rather than make the discography as detailed as a collector's book. Clear as mud, right?
Vmavanti ( talk) 01:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for adding Penguin Guide to Jazz ratings to lots of articles. It's something I've done occasionally, but not with the same level of perseverance that you have! EddieHugh ( talk) 19:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Contrabass sarrusophone, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scott Robinson, Clarence Williams and Misterioso. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walissima, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cordage.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 05:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC) reply

... I cannot help myself. - Roxy . wooF 09:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply

I keep telling myself that I’ve had enough of trying to sort this stuff out, but I keep going back... In the current case, does it even pass GNG? Do the sort of dictionary/glossary entries from which it is sourced count as “significant coverage”? Brunton ( talk) 20:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I missed this response, but todays developments here are, shall I say, an amusing indication of failure to get it. I'll think about the significant coverage aspects, as I haven't before. I have also discovered that you've been on the project longer than I, something I didn't realise. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello Brunton. Some of your edits to Floyd Jones will be removed. The article is violating the policy WP:COPYVIO. The article is similar to This link] about 80%. Here is the Earwig report While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues. You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here. Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia. If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- RV ( talk) 10:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

That one seems to have been copied from the Wikipedia article as well, RAJIVVASUDEV. Please stop adding these vexatious templates. Brunton ( talk) 11:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Are you sure about this? RV ( talk) 11:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes. Brunton ( talk) 11:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello Brunton. Some of your edits to Hound Dog Taylor and the HouseRockers will be removed.The article is violating the policy WP:COPYVIO. Here is the Earwig report. Thanks RV ( talk) 10:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

RAJIVVASUDEV, the post that you are claiming the article was copied from is dated May 2021. The article has been on Wikipedia in close to its current form for over a decade. Brunton ( talk) 11:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

OK, you must respond to all of them.Thank you for clarifying; I am removing the template in accordance with your statement. RV ( talk) 11:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The article is violating the policy WP:COPYVIO. Here is the Earwig report. Thanks RV ( talk) 11:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Again, RAJIVVASUDEV, that’s a post dated February 2019, over a decade after the creation of the content in the article. Brunton ( talk) 11:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Noted. RV ( talk) 11:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

The article is violating the policy WP:COPYVIO. Here is the Earwig report. Thanks RV ( talk) 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

RAJIVVASUDEV, that one is dated September 2018. To quote the earwig report page, “Be aware that other websites can copy from Wikipedia” Brunton ( talk) 11:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Noted. RV ( talk) 11:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Brunton, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, RV ( talk) 04:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Apologies, Burton. Even though I disagree with your edit, I see you did give a reason for it. I missed it.

Cordially, O Govinda ( talk) 02:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've spent time contributing to a Wikipedia page and I included information that contextualized a source of criticism. That is, I included sources (governmental, academic and police reports) that offered reasoning for criticism of certain practices that, while legal, were considered 'questionable'. I would think that if an individual engaged in those practices, the criticism applies, even though the individual is not named directly in those sources. I think it's more accurate to contextualize *why* criticism arises and this could well include local and regional issues. The example I am getting at is the practice of house flipping. Though it is not illegal, a sizeable amount of literature here in Canada has pointed out the economic and social problems this practice may and does facilitate, which includes increasing housing and rental costs, as well as money laundering and tax evasion. Thus, when I included criticism of the practice and the Wikpedia page includes specific and well sourced references to those practices by the individual, I think the addition of this information is warranted. You thoughts or reasoning welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiceTryEarl ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC) reply

I noticed you have offered an opinion but haven't "voted". 48Pills ( talk) 16:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Regarding user NiceTryEarl's talk page edits on Taleeb Noormohamed, I think his intention was to clean up some of his previous commentary. He made very significant changes to his personal user page based on some previous guidance I had given, and I think he is showing an effort to move forward in a way that is more in line with Wikipedia policy and culture. Something he left in a followup on the conversation on my talk page was PS: I'd really like to delete much of the commentary I've made above, but I won't, even though it's embarrassing; I think it shows progress and effort on his part.

Since no one had responded to the section about RyanChang2010, I partially reverted your edit (thus re-removing that one separate section). It was inappropriate for the talk page anyway, since it was essentially personal (and borderline WP:OUTING, something I did addressed with him, albeit not that specifically, which I suspect is part of why he changed his user page). I'd encourage you to reconsider his other changes, provided @ WildComet: would agree under WP:MUTUAL (Walter is indefed at present, so he can't). Not that I agree with trying hide things, but I think NiceTryEarl has shown progress and intention to move forward within WP guidelines (insofar as he knows them - he's still new). We need to encourage that behavior when effort is shown so that he sticks around, learns the culture, and becomes a long term editor doing things the right way. I'll commit to taking responsibility for keeping an eye on him and giving him guidance as long as he's showing due effort in moving in the right direction. Think about it and give it some consideration. ButlerBlog ( talk) 12:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I appreciate anyone who puts in the time to make Wikipedia better. If Earl wants to clear any discussions I was a part of which he feels are no longer productive, I won't object. —WildComet ^talk 05:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply

You giving me advices, I will give you one too. Read what is valuable resources. You work on Wikipedia from some time so you will find the appropriate page. If not I will give you the link, just tell me. One basic point is that to say "possibly there is something" is not informative. Imagine asking somebody on the intersection. When you ask somebody about location of a store, for example. And the person says: "possibly it is there", nothing more. Is the information any value to you who looking for the store. Wikipedia suppose to be informative place, this is no place for noninformative junk. Aserafin ( talk) 20:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC) reply

That type of content is a common behavior of Nuklear, an LTA that infests many pharmaceutical articles. DMacks ( talk) 18:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dennis Cross

added a link pointing to New York

Edward R. Kirkland

added a link pointing to Attorney

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. RV ( talk) 09:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Merry Christmas, Brunton! Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Wikipedia and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy, good health, and prosperity.

RV ( talk) 17:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I can across "The recording was made by Rudy Van Gelder, and was the first live recording made at the Village Vanguard. ^[1]" while reading through the A Night at the "Village Vanguard" page; I thought that was really cool information, and a fascinating source. I figured it was a coin toss between you and Helen Puffer Thwait as to who put it there. TlonicChronic ( talk) 16:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Cheers for all the tidy up edits you are doing. I just haven't had time to get into checking each one - but it seemed likely many were just name drops. Koncorde ( talk) 14:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree wholeheartedly with your complaints about the unilateral destruction of the page about Thelonious Monk's Blue Note sessions -- as well as the combining of the pages of "Genius" vols 1 & 2 --both done in January by a single editor. In both cases the current edits muddy up the waters on what had been accurate, easy-to-understand pages. Not to mention that they were long-fought-for pages which were the result of much collaboration.

I don't have much fight in me these days, but I will support any group effort to find a better solution that what exists there right now. Sojambi Pinola ( talk) 18:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

References:

2021: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Complete_Blue_Note_Recordings_of_Thelonious_Monk&oldid=1054449575

Current: /info/en/?search=The_Complete_Blue_Note_Recordings_of_Thelonious_Monk

2021: (the graphic of the volume 1 10" has been deleted): https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Genius_of_Modern_Music,_Vols._One_%26_Two&oldid=1015818325

Current: /info/en/?search=Genius_of_Modern_Music,_Vols._One_%26_Two

Sojambi Pinola ( talk) 18:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Sojambi Pinola, by coincidence I was just thinking about this, I'm currently reading Blue Note Records: The Biography by Richard Cook, and between that and a couple of Monk biographies etc. there is plenty of coverage of the sessions. I might get around to drafting something based on them next month, and then think about moving back to an article about the sessions (and their reissue history) with redirects from the various later reissue albums. Brunton ( talk) 19:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply