Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:59, 9 March 2008

Welcome!

Hello, CorticoSpinal! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

User name

Thanks for getting a user name, and for signing. Congrats. -- Fyslee / talk 05:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

your edit did not completely match your edit summary

You deleted cited material agreed upon by consensus and then replaced it with different text. Please explain. Quack Guru 03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is majority consensus that the contemporary view be included, and you would seemingly agree since you are in favour of adding 'reform' chiropractors into the school of thought subsection. Reform chiropractors are indeed contemporary chiropractors, so I don't follow your logic. EBDCM (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For example, you have a pattern of deleting references. Quack Guru 05:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, if you read my edits, by and large I add MANY references all of which are MORE RECENT and academically robust from scholarly sites or peer-reviewed research.

You edits, on the other hand... EBDCM (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But you still deleted references without explanantion. Quack Guru 17:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

GQ, I took out some dated and weak references and provided newer ones that are more robust. Such is the nature of scientific inquiry.

The references were not weak and that is not a reason to also delete the content and replace it with something else. Quack Guru 19:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wouldn't mind giving me your scientific credentials, I might be better to assess your credibility. However, based on the majority of your references and your ties to SB it seems that you're simply politicking right now. You also deleted my message to you on your talk page claiming it to be a personal attack when it was a simple note asking if you were editing in good faith. Hard to believe so when you call yourself quack guru.

QuackGuru's credentials are irrelevant. We don't assess edits based on the credentials of the editors. We assess the edits based on the edits. That is why we need reliable sources to help us assess the edits. Removing referenced material should be done with care and should usually be discussed. If you have a dispute, you should explain why you believe that material is not sufficiently relevant to the topic to be worthy of mention. If you have a good enough reason and you are able to explain it properly, then likely other editors will agree with you and you will achieve WP:Consensus. You will not achieve consensus by dismissing other editors because their credentials aren't good enough for you. Also you seem to have misunderstood AGF. QuackGuru obviously has a POV, as do you and me. There is nothing wrong with that. Editors should always do their best to put their POV aside when editing. That said, even if an editor fails to put aside their POV when editing, it doesn't mean they aren't acting in good faith. In fact, very often such people may be acting in good faith, they seriously believe they are improving the encylopaedia, they just aren't because they are not able to put their POV aside. The best example of people who are not acting in good faith is vandals. Someone who repeatedly comes to a page and adds "GEORGE W BUSH SUCKS BALLS" is probably not acting in good faith, they are not trying to improve the encylopaedia. Also, dismissing someone because of their views is definitely a personal attack. I suggest you take a look at WP:NPA Nil Einne (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Hello. Regarding the activity on the chiropractic article: I've blocked Mccready (talk · contribs) for edit-warring, taking into account his history. However, you're also engaged in edit-warring. You're right at 3 reverts, by my count, with several additional borderline edits in the past 24 hours. I'm going to ask that you back off and slow down on the reverting. If there is really a consensus against Mccready's edit, then others will also revert him - there's no rush. I would strongly suggest limiting yourself to 1 revert per day, voluntarily, for at least the next week or two. MastCell  17:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic article

Hey, EBDCM -

It looks like my edit to Chiropractic and your note on my talk page sailed past each other in the night; I already edited that sentence.

My concern, right now, is with the very vague word "some." The assertion that "some" chiropractors reject subluxation is inarguably true, but it has the potential to be misleading. I don't know if the words "a few" or "most" or "a sizeable minority" or "a large majority" would be better - I'm having a lot of trouble finding a reliable source on that question. My impression is that "some" should stay, but only until we're confident enough to replace it.

Like I said on the Chiro talk page: if you have a suggestion that isn't a revert of someone else's edit, by all means, please be bold and make it. --Hyperbole (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent comment on my talk page, I'm aware there has been a "paradigm shift" in chiropractics, but I don't know its scope - questions like "what proportion of countries are undergoing it," "what proportion of chiropractors are undergoing it," and "when did it start and is it still ongoing." And in order to report on that paradigm shift in the article, we're really going to need reliable sources that detail it for us. Do you know of any such sources? --Hyperbole (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=190012163 There are 2, 3, or 4 groups? Please provide a reference. Should we delete the reformers bit or leave it in the article. Quack Guru 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Analgesic effects of Acupuncture

Not sure if any of this helps you, but at the very least I thought you might be interested:

Warmest, -- Levine2112 06:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this is typical. He'll ask for a sci study but then he'll find some flaw according to his own wisdom but he won't see any prob with wickedly poor "research" as long as it supports him pov. Just wanted to give you a heads up to save you the headache. :) --Hughgr (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism

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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Thank you. -- Levine2112 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tirade on Chirotalk

Please desist from personal abuse. You've been asked many times. Please format your contributions properly. You may wish to do so on this one . You have yet to provide the evidence I asked for. Mccready (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mccready, for the umteenth time, I'm not abusing you. I have just shredded your argument that's all. I asked you a question and you keep dodging it: how can you claim to be scientific and yet deny any existence of scientific chiropractic and acupuncture? Even other CAM skeptics have suggested that you've gone too far. I agree with them.

Goodnight. EBDCM (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talkpage. And I have indented again for you. Will you please remember to do this? Mccready (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring on Doctor of Chiropractic

Will you please revert your revert. I gave good reasons in my edit summary. You have not addressed these reasons. I will expand on them for you. The material deleted was repeated, albeit in a slightly different form, on the main chiro page. You know as well as I do that that material is subject to an ongoing POV discussion and the issues are not yet settled. It is thus wrong of you to attempt to reinsert it. A link to the chiro article will serve just as well and avoid making wikipedia look ridiculous by having two or more different definitions of chiro on various pages. Mccready (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagreed with your revert and before you arrived on the scene that article was stable as well. You have an ongoing history of destabilizing articles. The edit you made altered what was previously a NPOV. I suggest that before you continue editing and being subjected to many reverts by various editors that you gain some kind of consensus first in Talk Pages. EBDCM (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

replied on talkpage. Please desist from uncivil remarks. And this is about the seventh time I've reminded you to indent, and gone back and indented for you with colons. It helps to see clearly the discussion. Please do so in future. Mccready (talk)

Mccready, I'm still learning the ropes regarding formatting and am trying my best to make my comments as easy readable as possible. I will reply to you on the talk page. EBDCM (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

please discuss

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chiropractic#copyright_violation There are issues surrounding the information you added to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Chiropractic and your complaints about QuackGuru

I've archived your complaint, , as inappropriate for the article talk page per WP:TALK. Please take it to an appropriate venue, such as WP:EAR or perhaps WP:ANI. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your complaints appear to be mostly about WP:COI issues, so I'd try WP:COIN. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru can be extremely difficult to get along with, so it's best to focus on discussing edits rather than editors. You've tried discussing your concerns on his talk page and he obviously isn't interested in continuing those discussions there. While I've suggested WP:COIN as a good place to take your dispute, WP:DR is the policy for handling disputes, so you should look there before following my suggestion. --Ronz (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a report at a noticeboard. Feel free to comment at the board. QuackGuru (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you read and comment there. Failing to comment can be detrimental to your future reputation here. This is a golden opportunity to show you can learn. -- Fyslee / talk 06:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked for the incident report and could not find it in the link you provided. If it was a typo please resend it as I would like to at least defend myself and state my case regarding GQs accusation. Thanks in advance! EBDCM (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll find it here in the archives. Noticeboard stuff gets archived pretty quickly. -- Fyslee / talk 07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, defending yourself too strongly might not be a good idea. An apology and promise to do better, including listening to more experienced users (especially Dematt), would serve you better. (Not that QG is totally innocent....;-) -- Fyslee / talk 07:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits on vertebral subluxation

Thank you for your edits on vertebral subluxation. Unfortunately they were not accompanied by reliable sources. On wikipedia it is not sufficient to write from your personal knowledge without backing that up with reliable sources. Will you please refrain from editing the article while the community considers your recent series of edits. I'm sure you will acknowledge that there may be different views to your own which need to be considered if we are to improve the article. Mccready (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mccready,

I will provide all the references within a few days. I do have them. This wiki needs major cleanup and simplification, just like our work on the main wiki. I hope to work with you constructively on this one and I will present all POV. Like you, I am a skeptic of the VSC which is a unique perspective considering I am a DC. I am editing in good faith and seek only to improve the quality and flow of the article. References will be forthcoming, I promise. EBDCM (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just added colons so your comment was indented properly. Please start doing this. It's extremely irritating when you fail to indent properly. Also please stop referring to articles as "wikis". This whole place is Misplaced Pages, which is one wiki. The articles are articles, not individual "wikis". It's confusing when you call them wikis. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally do that, too. Please feel free to correct me when I forget to indent properly. (They don't do it at CZ) -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

I haven't looked extensively into your contribs but I am deeply concerned about what I have heard. I would strongly suggest you read WP:Copyvio, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights and WP:Plagiarism. It is not acceptable to copy large sections of text from other copyrighted sourced into wikipedia and copyright violations are a very serious thing. If you do want to quote an author, this should be done minimally (usually not more than a sentence or two) and it should be made clear it is a quotation (by using quotation marks and sourcing the information; e.g. According to Bill Gates the author of the study, "Windows is the best OS in the world".). You should only quote an author when it is absolutely necessary, this will usually be when you are mentioning the opinion of the author/s, otherwise the information should be paraphrased and re-written in your own words. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; but the issue in question was rectified with better formatting. The section in question was properly referenced although significant lobbying has been done to remove it (potentially because it negates their personal beliefs). Regardless, experienced editors who have looked into the situation have assured me that edit in question was within the rules. I appreciate your concern and am working at learning the various ins and outs at wikipedia. Cheers. EBDCM (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing to vaccine controversy

Hi EBDCM. With regard to your edits today to vaccine controversy, you seem to be engaged in a bit of an edit-war there regarding a quote from D.D. Palmer and some other issues. Misplaced Pages discourages edit-warring in general, and the 3-revert rule sets out an "electric fence" insisting that no one revert more than 3 times in a day. The 3 reverts are an upper limit, though, and any edit-warring is generally bad. Looking over your edits to vaccine controversy, a strict interpretation of the policy would suggest you've already gone up to 4 reverts. Even with a looser reading, you're right up against the 3-revert rule. Please slow down and give it at least a day or so before reverting any further. The other editors on the article are reasonable and I don't think anyone's out to make chiropractic look bad; try addressing your concerns on the talk page instead of via edit summary. I'm not going to do anything at this juncture, but further reverting would make you liable to a block. Take a break and move to the talk page to raise your concerns. MastCell  20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell. I will do so. I realized I was getting close to the 3RR and was hoping it wouldn't go that far. I appreciate your suggestions and will implement them. EBDCM (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

EBDCM, following MastCell's post you promised to implement his advice. Yet the very next day, on the very same topic within chiro you reverted another editor. Your edit statement said "The previous edit by Dematt seemed to have consensus and being NPOV whereas your major edit does not. Please gain consensus on talk page before completely changing the edit in question. Thanks!)" You should have known quite well that this was still a highly controversial revert by yourself. There was NOT consensus as your possibly weaselword "seemed" would seem to indicate you knew. In you edit statemnet you suggested that consensus should be achieved before edits are made. Exactly. I'm sure you weren't meaning to be hypocritical, but I'm also sure that you can see you leave yourself open to such an interpretation. In future you should allow at least 24 hours and ideally 48 hours before performing such controversial reverts. Thank you for your cooperation. And like we say, no-one is out to get chiro. We all just want a factual NPOV article. Mccready (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That was my one, and only revert that day Mccready which was in line with Mastcell's recommendations. I have read on here that Dematt is a well respected editor and is very knowledgeable about the chiropractic article. So, based on that, and that I found his edit to be more NPOV is why I made the revert. EBDCM (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you denying your revert was controversial? Mccready (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When editing a controversial article like chiropractic undoubtedly some edits will be perceived as controversial, despite the fact the editor is doing so in good faith. I considered Eubulides original edit controversial reverted it, and he reverted mine. We'll find something in the middle somewhere. You wrote "Please gain consensus on talk page before completely changing the edit in question" and I would agree, but will remind you that you either forgotten this yourself a few times or have taken a very liberal interpretation of it although your tone as of late has definitely improved. EBDCM (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work

Hi EBDCM, I just wanted to let you know that I think you have improved significantly in the last few days. I think you'll find that if you respect other POVs, others will respect yours and ultimately we will end up with a NPOV article. Thanks for your help. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In spite of the often inevitable beginner problems you have encountered, I second Dematt's comment. You have a positive learning curve, and that tendency will serve you very well here. As Dematt can attest, I can work fine even with people who hold opposing POV, as long as there is a collaborative spirit. You and I actually share a number of POV, so that should make it even easier. Keep up the good work, but don't pause or fall back into old habits. Step back from any "warrior" stances and think twice before pushing that "Save page" button. (I speak from bitter experience and wish I always remembered to do that! We're all learning here.) Nice to have you onboard. -- Fyslee / talk 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, your doing great! And as Fyslee said, think twice before hitting save. Numerous times I've decided not to comment on something even tho the editor in question is making a comment thats... well... just bad. :) Keep up the good work! --Hughgr (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I generally have been doing that; but sometimes have forgotten, but sometimes have done so and my signature has not come up! EBDCM (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If only the time stamp comes up, then it's because five tildes were used. That might be an explanation. -- Fyslee / talk 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Diversified

A tag has been placed on Diversified requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Gary King (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

smacks point

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Chiropractic&curid=197022&diff=194254981&oldid=194251405

Your edit was unconstructive and deleted quality references needed to verify the text. Consider NPOV. Please refrain from making such edits again. QuackGuru (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit failed to seek consensus despite numerous reverts by other editors. Please gain agreement on Talk page first as per the rest of the editors for major edits. Thanks. EBDCM (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit on Chiropractic

Your edit on Chiropractic wasn't bad; Modalities is a good word to describe it: ; the problem is that there is whole 'nother article which is called Chiropractic treatment techniques....I don't want people visiting this article to be confused so I made these edits as a compromise: and here: --Trulexicon (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me! EBDCM (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome I'm trying to make the Chiropratic article a bit easier to read...its very hard on the eyes...--Trulexicon (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2008

(UTC)

It's quite the contentious article with land mines everywhere! We're doing our best to keep it at a high standard but there's always a few skeptics who try to mass edit things with questionable citations there is nowhere even in the ballpark of WP:MEDRS. If you stick around you'll see trends and know what I'm talking about. If you're decent at HTML could you make a text box around the philosopy points at the end (holism, conservatism, manual/biopsychosocial). It looks jumbly to me (but the content it good). EBDCM (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Was just looking at some of the refs in the chiro article and noticed this: By 1995, chiropractors had gained hospital privileges at more than 100 hospitals.. Thought it might help with an edit you were trying to add.--Hughgr (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with WP:3RR limit at the chiropractic article. You seem to revert anything you don't personally like. QuackGuru (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a questioning of reverting what I don't like, it's a matter of the size of the edit, it's controversy, and if it has gained consensus. If I have to get a block for maintaining, what I objectively feel in the best interest of the article (and to a greater extent the wikipedia project) then so be it. I'm not here for pizza and fairy tales. I have a full time job. I know it's rough waters here and am beginning to appreciate some of the perversions and politics at wikipedia but I'm here to provided balanced education on primarily CAM topics for the world to learn about. The research is out there now, and it needs a voice and I intent to provide it. EBDCM (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification

I know you may already read this, but officially I apparently have to put this block of text on your talk page:

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please spare me the theatrics, quack guru. Your edits consistently get reverted because they are weak; both in the written word and the citations you use. The majority of your references are from layman internet cites and you keep trying to push Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch as reputable sources when the rest of us counter with peer-reviewed primary and secondary sources. Also, the half decent references you do you are ancient with better, more current and stronger literature that refutes the claims you make. This attempt here to portray me as some vandal and bad editor is seems like a desperate attempt to get me blocked or banned because I have generally being a strong contributor to the chiropractic article which goes against your personal POV (hence the quack guru, right?). Anyways, please desist from spamming my talk page any further and your history here at wikipedia speaks for itself and I'll let the admins decide whether or not your nefarious claims have any merit (they don't). EBDCM (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

QG

I would suggest that you not continue adding comments to QG's talk. It could be viewed as harassment and I take a dim view of that. If you want to discuss my block action, do it on my talk please. Vsmith (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert-war on my talk page again. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

please respect NPOV

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Chiropractic appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for the welcome, Quack Guru. As always, I strive to bring high editing, writing and referencing standards that comes from reliable, valid, notable and preferably peer-reviewed research (meta-analyses when possible). The revert in question has to do with an ongoing discussion regarding safety which many involved editors are trying to come to a consensus. Nevertheless, it is inappropriate to make a mass edit to a controversial section when there in an ongoing effort to come up with text that is suitable to all parties. I hope that you will refrain from adding the edit in question (again) until all parties have reached an agreement. EBDCM (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

alternative accounts

Quick question. Is the anon and the two separate accounts the same person. If so, I recommend you edit with only one account. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The 208 (IP address) occurs when my EBDCM account times out and I have not noticed that I am not logged in. I have already told admin MastCell of a previous account that is no longer being used and he is aware of it, so no sock puppetry is in play. I stand by all my edits and use only my account. Thanks for asking for clarification first, but I had already mentioned this to admins to avoid these accusations and confusion. EBDCM (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also ask Mr. Guru, that you refrain from "outing" users by using real identities as per proper wikipedia policy. The person in question has relocated to another province, however my initials M (for Martin) on 208 is indeed me and is simply when I have been logged out due to time. EBDCM (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. McDougall

He wrote several books in the early 90's and held seminars. I followed his vegan diet for quite a while. (lost weight, felt great...and hungry!) His website is glossy and it looks like he sells DVDs and stuff. He is still researching the effect of diet on heart disease, autoimmune disease and the like and trying to popularize his ideas. He used to be on the radio in my area.CynRN —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynRN (talk • contribs) 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC) http://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletter/may_june2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynRN (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are being discussed

Here. Anthon01 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And here. QuackGuru (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

There is substantial and convincing evidence at this thread. Your response to the evidence was combative and made me feel that a block was necessary to protect the project from disruption. Please only return to edit areas where you are willing to cooperate with other editors in building a high quality encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not for ideological struggle.

To any administrator reviewing this block, please read the evidence and response carefully before making a decision. Jehochman 19:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

1. http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_arthritis_diet.html