Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:46, 8 May 2008

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Hi

Hi just reading the contents of Archive 2. I suggest that you aquaint yourself with the dispute resolution mechanisms and use them as a matter of course whenever faced with unbalanced editors/administrators. It may take a little longer but it will avoid exciting times such as seen in Archive 2. As you have probably seen many skeptics have "gone beyond" the scientific method into righteousness. Bringing such cases to dispute resolution will help WP work better for reasonable and rational editors. SmithBlue (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

a view may be spelled out in great detail on pages specifically devoted to them

WP:NPOV "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

Go to WP:NPOV and check that above are current.

Your fellow editor is treating Chiropractic as part of the WikiProject Medicine. If you have time and access to resources showing that Medicine has had a illegal or unreasoning bias against chiro and that journals within your speciality are more relevant and reliable than medical journals then experimenting with the dispute resolution would be a learning experience.

A suggestion - leave the chiro article alone for 8 months - go and edit a wide range of articles, hang out at a Wikiproject for a while working with other editors, get to see dispute resolution working and failing and what makes it work and what makes it fail. Then go back to Chiro. You'll get to know the policies and be under a lot less stress - you will be needled by more experienced game-playing editors who just want you to lash out so you can be blocked. But you'll have seen it all before editing articles that don't mean a lot to you. Assuming you don't take that course, here is an inaccurate tale.

There is a huge on-line game , very popular, sometimes thrilling and often addictive, in which anyone can play at being an encyclopedia editor. The rules are consciously chosen, and reiterated where necessary, to allow untrusted, deeply ignorant, just literate humans to work together using info cited to reliable published sources. And the only way such people can know that something is relevant to a topic is if an expert tells them in a reliable published source that "ABC is related to HIPPO". The rules and structures are such that an artifact is produced by the players. (The aforementioned artifact is an encyclopedia called Misplaced Pages.)

Anyway I'm way past sleepytime. SmithBlue (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In appreciation...

Thanks for starting the new article Veterinary chiropractic. -- Levine2112 03:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Your recovery from blocked user to most valued contributor is an inspiration to us all. -- Levine2112 03:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll drink to that! -- Fyslee / talk 03:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, team! CorticoSpinal (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Chiropractic. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Also warned 208.101.118.196; if you not the same editor, I apologize. —EncMstr (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you could provide a diff on an alleged attack that would be grateful. Otherwise I would please ask that you desist from making unfound allegations. Thanks. CorticoSpinal (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooo, looks like EncMstr beat me to it. I guess they are talking about . The "take two Valium" comment might not have gone down too well. Frankly a little bit of incivility doesn't bother me, but it might be best to treat the more science minded editors with a little bit of patience. Major changes, especially by an editor by with a rather obvious conflict of interest, are likely to be treated with suspicion. The fact that it's being made on a page where advocates have had a history of pushing pseudoscience surely exacerbates the problem. It'll go a lot better if you take it slow and propose changes slowly and piecemeal. Jefffire (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually this edit compelled me to respond. It's a little odd though: it was written by 208.101.118.196 (talk · contribs), but CoricoSpinal changed it to his signature 68 seconds later. —EncMstr (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My account had timed out and had signed it under my 208IP but promptly signed and added my sig to my comment. Anyways, I appreciate your feedback, from you both. Jefffire, you will soon discover that I'm not the "traditional" DC and that these little implications that suggest that I'm not equally as scientific as an MD (" ...best to treat the more science minded editors with a little bit of patience.") don't fly with me, or any other contemporary chiropractor. I'd also like to note, that the proposed section was discussed on chiropractic talk for over a week. I followed all the rules and then-some. This, IMO, is simply more obstruction from the medical community who can seemingly do no wrong, know everything about every profession and impose their will on autonomous, complementary professions. In the end, the truth will come through, like it always does. G'night gentlemen. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With the recent drama unfolding, I'd recommend taking a short wiki-break, step away from WP for a bit, and when you come back, it may be a bit more sorted out already. DigitalC (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm heading to band practice right now, taking a much needed break from the unncessary drama here. Your thoughts would be appreciated on the talk sections. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And it appeared to work. Maybe something going on behind the scenes? But SOP was re-inserted into the article by an admin. DigitalC (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Justice. It's rare it happens so what it does, it's doubly sweet. I knew all along the section was NPOV and most importantly, very well cited. It's nice to see an admin step up make the right call. Ultimately it was the PROJECT that was strengthened here, not just Chiropractic, which is the big picture. Hopefully we won't have the same needless charade on chiropractic Education, Licensing and Regulation. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually that was an abuse of admin privileges since they are not meant to make contested changes to protected pages. In am disheartened to see that instead of discussing the edits and references you are continuing on these soliloquies about "truth" and "justice". Discuss the material on the talk page and this will go much smoother. Jefffire (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, disagreed. Look at the chiropractic talk pages. I'm there and have been there in some form consistently since Jan 08. What about you? I hardly think it's abuse of admin priviledges, it rather a deft application of WP:SPADE. CorticoSpinal (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your free to believe whatever you like. However the admin edit was reverted, and other editors on the talk page are usefully discussing the matter despite your refusal to do so. Jefffire (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

. Nah this is bunk. I just commented on Talk (again). Nice to see you participate there too. CorticoSpinal (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see you take my advice and move away from criticizing the scientific editors and instead making meaningful discussion on the sources. You are however mistaken on the relative strengths of the different sources. Those produced by mainstream sources are always stronger. Jefffire (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, let's get one thing clear. I'm a scientific editor. To insinuate that I am not, like you've being done this whole thread is being interpreted as as a personal attack and a lack of good faith. Also, please don't delete my comments in the Talk page. That's in poor taste. Lastly, explain to me in why the "word" of an MD/PhD with respect to Chiropractic trumps the "word" of a DC/PhD. Because what I'm seeing is that in Chiropractic, medical opinion has the final say. You agree with this? CorticoSpinal (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review, I see that you've gone to lengths to point out that I'm in disagreement with "scientific" editors implying, gently, that I am not scientific. I want this to be unmistakably clear: I'm an evidence-based practitioner. As in evidence based medicine. I graduated from an evidence-based school in 2006. I have a BSc (Hons) in Kinesiology. Please don't question my scientific credentials. Also, I would appreciate if you not make misleading edit summaries as you done which suggests I'm a disruptive editor. This wouldn't have to do with me being an editor who happens to be a chiropractor would it? I hope this isn't some kind of attempt to portray me as a liability to the project, you know, to get me blocked or banned. I would appreciate any clarifications if I'm wrong. Have a great weekend, Jefffire, thanks for your concerns.

I hope you will stop inserted text between another specific editors comment. It is hard to follow and confusing. I will revert the edit. You can readd the text but do it after the comments. This will help avoid any confusion and any misunderstanding. QuackGuru (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted your comments because they broke up others talk page comments, making the page extremely difficult to read. Its generally considered poor form, and makes it very difficult for others to contribute in a meaningful manner. If you wish for the talk page to be useful place of discussion, I would recommend reverting it back and rewording your views into a concise single entry. Otherwise progress will be much more difficult.

It's still in poor taste to delete comments like that. I'd also appreciate not being lectured on how to use Talk, no editor had brought up any of the concerns you have. I'm going to restore my comments since they're directed to Eubulides, and not yourself. Thanks for stopping by (again). CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That you self identify as a "scientific editor" is irrelevant to me. Your approach is so far betraying a general unfamiliarity with scientific practice. Medical science is the most authoritative source on all medical claims. Per WP:Fringe, non-mainstream sources are suitable for sourcing beliefs of various practitioners, but not for verifying factual claims. Authoritative reviews in high impact journals for example are well respected in scientific circles, and make good citations. Jefffire (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's quite relevant to our discussion because you've suggested that I was not scientific. So I made sure that there was no misunderstanding on this point. There is no such thing as "medical science" or "chiropractic science" it's all science. We're not talking about beliefs here either, so it's best we stick to the topic. Why are MD/PhD sources preferred to DC/PhD sources in Chiropractic? I'm well aware of journal searching and know the levels of evidence, I've had that a lot during my 8 years of university. So, to get this straight you are associating chiropractic scientists (DC/PhDs) with WP:Fringe? CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Alt med is the fringe, mainstream medicine is (by defintion) the mainstream. Jefffire (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Herring argument. Why is MD/PhD sources preferable to DC/PhD sources in Chiropractic? Suddenly science is fringe? CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your dearth of scientific experience is showing. Misplaced Pages guidelines clearly state that mainstream journals are much better sources than fringe sources. If you don't like that, you can either put up, or shut up. There's no getting around it. Jefffire (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, this is an appeal to authority fallacy and another straw man argument. You're dodging my argument. Suddenly peer-reviewed, indexed literature produced by DC/PhDs is fringe. That's probably the weakest line I've heard here yet. Also, I've noted your "put up or shut up" is far from WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. If that's the way it's going to be, I'll ask that you not come to my talk page anymore. Thanks. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You may call it an appeal to authority, but you will find that Misplaced Pages's policies are quite clear: mainstream journals are superior to minority journals. If the BMJ says something and a zero impact chiropractic journal disagrees, then the BMJ wins. As you wish this shall be my last message. But, given your conflict of interest, tendentious editing practices and general opposition to proper scientific sourcing, you will end up being blocked soon enough anyway. Jefffire (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've sought and gotten the opinion of experienced Wikipedians who suggest the contrary. Also, you're misrepresenting the issue, which is not surprising given straw man arguments are founded on that principle. Lastly, all your alleged grievances are completely without merit, the majority supports the edits, I bring strong scientific sources, it was written NPOV and a neutral admin even concurred. So your point is? What don't you understand about evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice? Because, judging by your comments, I think there's severe cognitive dissonance going on here, you know, debating with a scientific chiropractor. I find it pretty interesting too how medical doctors such as User:Antelan and User:Orangemarlin, for example, can edit Allopathic medicine and Doctor of Medicine with no concern for conflict of interest. So, again, another weak argument. Lastly, don't think I don't know for a second what's going on here, baiting me and trying to get me blocked. Anything to supress knowledge, right, Jefffire?

don't dump half an article on AN/i

it really pisses people off and can be considered disruption if you continue - link to content instead. --87.114.7.178 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no link to add to since it had been reverted and blanked. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

collaboration and discussion is the key to NPOV

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AChiropractic&diff=206650929&oldid=206638618 <-- POV issues

There are still some POV issues that need to be fixed before the Scope of practice is restored. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Quack, to suggest that I don't know my collaboration, discussion and NPOV is laughable, especially coming from you of all people. Also, might I remind me you that adminUser:SWATjester an independent, neutral, 3rd party observer restored it and even requested that it be kept because the revert was indeed a deliberate act of vandalism that somehow went unpunished. And it's this type of behaviour and editing practices that are driving rationale, good contributing editors, myself included, into fits. The fact that this stuff is occuring at a Chiropractic is even worse considering how long this stupid war has been playing out.

No more WP:BAIT QG. It's clear now that you have intended to drive me off the project, one only has to look at archive and this Talk page that you're simply trying to be disruptive; again displaying the same traits and behaviours that you do at Chiropractic. You are hiding behind an invisible cloak of civility, but you're still violating the spirit of the project.

You've found a way to civilly, yet consistently disrupt Chiropractic in one form or another for over a year now. A look at your lengthy and consistent block log on Chiropractic suggests a certain fixation on the topic with less than stellar results or contributions. Your continued stall tactics on Chiropractic Scope of Practice is completely unfounded nor justified and clearly illustrated a certain tactical approach, and extremely trivial objections that could have been much better solved with tweaks than a revert war triggered here by Eubulides. I won't go as far to suggest there you are in violation of WP:MEAT but you definitely blur the line too much given your less than stellar history here. Also, looking at the big picture of your overall contribs (besides regularly edit warring and disruption chiropractic) I think you're due for a topic ban. It's been over a year; and the article is being repeatedly abused by disruptive edits, POV pushing, blind reversions. Now, I want you to please respect my wishes and stay off my talk page. It's going on 4 months that you've been baiting me, harassing me, canvassing against me, and all the other BS I've had to endure. No more. CorticoSpinal (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kinesiologists do not need a degree

This is a fact, and continually changing it back won't make it any less true. You povide no source and you don't even mention which country you think these so-called degree requirements refer to (this is not just a US article). Quacks should admit that the whole quackery industry is unregulated - kinesiology more than most. 86.165.198.169 (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In defense of CorticoSpinal's edits, scientific kinesiology is not the same as applied kinesiology, the quack alt med practice. -- Fyslee / talk 14:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fyslee. It's a very important difference to note. Anon might be best served by typing in Kinesiology in google and he/she can see it's a formal university degree definitely in Canada, but also in the US I think. CorticoSpinal (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether there's a formal degree or not is irrelevant. The fact is that - contrary to what this article states formerly stated - a degree is NOT required to practise kinesiology in all the countries en.wikipedia.org covers. It certainly is not required in the UK. Similarly, there are formal degrees available for homeopathy & acupuncture in the US and the UK, but there is no requirement for someone to gain one before practising as a homeopath or acupuncturist. Therefore the article is incorrect & misleading and should be amended. 86.165.198.169 (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is factual and well sourced. Kinesiology is a bachelor of science degree. To be talking about acu and homeopathy here is a red herring and I suggest we stick to the topic at hand. Thanks. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a simple example to try to make my point as, for whatever reason, you were struggling to grasp it. Perhaps you can get a Kinesiology BSc - so what? This statement was in the article I edited: "Kinesiologists are professionals who have obtained a university degree from a recognized University". They MAY have a degree - but there is no requirement for a kinesiologist to have a degree; therefore this statement is incorrect. It is a very poor article but at least the new edit (by Mccready) corrects this untrue claim. 86.165.198.169 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are being discussed

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AN#Multiple_identity_syndrome DigitalC (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of it. I noticed who started the thread as well; the same admin brought it over to MastCell's page. They're keeping tabs on me; which is all good. They'll notice what I have to put it with and it will perfectly explain a lot of things that were left hanging previously. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jefffire

I filed a Wikiquette Alert earlier today. If he keeps it up, we can escalate it to WP:AN/I. In the meantime, let's just ignore him. :-) -- Levine2112 07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered similar borderline civility issues here on my talk page (which I subsequently asked him not to write on). So far so good with that; hopefully he changes approaches; WP:AN/I should be used as a last resort. CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay

Hi there,

Sorry its taken me so long to get back to you. I am interested, of course. I'm sorry that I haven't responded earlier. I agree with you completely about cultural relativism. I also think that Misplaced Pages has great guidelines for dealing with this appropriately, but its still up to individual people to follow those guidelines or not. I feel that a lot of information is being censored, because a small but vocal minority find it "controversial." Bryan Hopping 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We share similar goals; produce quality encyclopaedic content and providing our expertise on our respected professions. I want to foster good interdisciplinary relations here; and have in real life (I work at the community health centre with MDs, RNs RDs and OT. I am the NMS doc, and I'm completely respected for my area of expertise. Yet, when I bring that expertise here, a select number of die-hard "skeptic" editors, (I have 3 on the list with a total of about 6-7 who, since Jan 08, have actively engaged in supressing and disrupting my efforts to bring Chiropractic up to snuff. Only, as of late, there has been a certain allopathic editor who wants the allopathic POV to trumps chiropractic POV (POV=science), and has constantly been blocking my efforts at any every turn usually over the smallest of things. And, it's not only me. There's between 4-5 editors who share the same concerns and raise the same points. Which he has never addressed, or addressed well enough that the 5 regular editors. Check this out and, if you have the time, the Appeal to drop effectiveness section. There you will see a perfect example of civil POV pushing. I would appreciate to have the osteopathic input on this here, ultimately I feel the best, and fairest way to get all articles (and especially "controversial" ones like Chiropractic is to have editors, such as yourself, who have demonstrated expertise consistently on a given subject (Osteopathic Medicine. My goal is to provide expertise to all chiropractic articles, but all physical medicine. I just want to get "home turf" cleared out first because it's long overdue . Ultimately, the medical editors here are going to learn, accept and respect the emergence of scientific chiropractors and given the opportunity to be productive (which I can't with all the obstructionism (look and scars I hope generate some serious discussion about major problems with the project here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Civil POV Pushing (copied from Raul654's page)

1) SA is infamously known by myself and many others for having a non-judicial attitude towards CAM subjects and Chiropractic specifically. Also, it doesn't look good when he pops by the hornets nest and starts interjects himself in a middle of a contentious discussion and patently makes a false declaration here: . So, I don't see how Wikipedians who work with or are and in CAM professions could ever really be productive; offer their expertise and ever be given a fair shake (especially under the current editorial philosophies and constraints). For example, it seems the minute I declare I'm a DC WP:AGF goes out the window, and I'm suddenly anti-science and POV warrior. This type of outburst occurred on this very page. I would also like to make it abundantly clear that the "mainstream" orthodox medicine editors here are not representing the literature with respect "mainstream" attitude toward Chiropractic specifically and CAM generally. Citations are available, of course, upon request. Prepare to have some cognitive dissonance if you have not kept abreast on the issues. The science will sort everything out; when a profession develops a sufficient literature base and equivocal regulation and licensing, it ceases to be FRINGE. Until then, we absolutely, must separate what CAM professions and/or modalities are considered to be mainstream. Under this guise, modalities such as acupuncture should no longer be considered fringe and be merged with the evidence-based equivalent, medical acupuncture and avoid the needlessly long POV pushing and disruptive edits. The same logic should be used to distinguish the professional merits of CAM professions. For example, Homeopathy which virtually has nil literature and regulation in any jurisdiction should not be placed in the same category as Chiropractic who has a vastly superior body of research (which is improving by leaps and bounds) as demonstrated by the recent clinical practice guidelines draft . Clearly the profession has matured to a point where any comparison with Flat Earth and Homeopathy (which I hear all the time from a certain orthodox medical editor) is just a tad unfair, no?

That leads to the question why wikipedia doesn't have a "expert consensus" version of a topic, that is used in other related articles. No need to have vastly different literature (if any!) and versions on a given topic, especially one that's incredibly well written and cited appropriately. This type of thing is probably more readily applicable to medical related topics, but it should be food for thought as an effective approach at a) reducing the heterogeneity of the same topic while b) being an effective mechanism at increasing the quality control and content of the project whilst c) preventing stupid POV wars and disruption. Thoughts?

I removed this because it contains a bit of an attack on SA and the place where you posted it is inappropriate. You obviously do not enjoy editing with SA and that is fine. But do not bring your previous problems with him onto that page. That is not the purpose of the page. We are all aware of SA's history and understand not all editors enjoy working with him. But let's drop the matter on that particular page. Take it up at WP:ANI if it is a problem. Otherwise, please participate constructively. Baegis (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it "SA is infamously known by myself and many others for having a non-judicial attitude towards CAM subjects and Chiropractic specifically. Also, it doesn't look good when he pops by the hornets nest and starts interjects himself in a middle of a contentious discussion and patently makes a false declaration here: ." this is the personal attack? Point noted that this is interpreted to be a PA but that was not the intent. I took me awhile to come up with non-judicial! Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Traditional medicine

You just added spinal manipulation as an example of a traditional medicine practice. Neither of those pages indicate any connection except tenuously through alternative medicine. Is there something I am missing here? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I had been looking for a ref, yes, but actually checking for myself just now further than just reading those articles it seems valid to have in that intro list as is. I found it credible enough to ask (especially since based on your edits I got the impression that you would know), but I was not aware of the ancient roots of the modern practice.

I think if the matter is discussed in depth in that context it would need a ref connecting the ancient practices to the modern implementation. Consider as an analogy that both Democritus and Epicurus philosophized indivisible units, but modern atomic theory is not really built on their ideas. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD Sports Chiropractic

Result: "The result was no consensus, default to keep. Disregarding any possible 'delete' !votes, third-party sources were provided which buoy claims of notability. The article does, however, need to be cleaned up and rewritten to stay in line with what the sources actually say." DigitalC (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure the sources are used appropriately; the content is there for all to see. Thanks for bringing me up to speed, I guess we can get rid of that banner now? CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! The article is rescued and the one who raised the AfD is getting blocked and/or banned for other disruptions and edit warring. How ironic...;-)-- Fyslee / talk 05:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

please stop

Your incivility towards me has never stopped. Knock it off. QuackGuru 06:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop now. QuackGuru 06:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It always has been the other around, Quack. You remember that Foo Fighters song, "Best of You"? Well, looking through my archives, you once did get the best of me. No more. You have had a lot of chances to prove that you were a net contributor and had some kind of expertise in chiropractic. It's clear that you do not, that you have an unhealthy skepticism which goes beyond rationale but into the pathological. If you are indeed a good contributor, to ALL of wikipedia, then a topic ban will blow over and you can resume editing. But we're trying to work on serious medically related articles. These articles require expertise and a heightened sensitivity for NPOV. You bring neither. Please desist from writing on my talk page any further. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I support your proposed investigation of QG, BUT with a caveat. His expertise has nothing to do with his rights here. It's his edit warring and lack of collaboration that are the problem. Focus on that. -- Fyslee / talk 06:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be more than enough evidence and diffs to validate the case. It's late, going to bed. I had not anticipated the sudden last minute drama; but I felt it was important to make the comments I did. We'll see where it goes and hopefully we can have a better editing experience here and stop the nonsense that's been going on since February 08. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

With both Mac and QG it goes back years! -- Fyslee / talk 06:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. I don't know how yourself, Dematt and other could have made it. I was going insane after 3 months! A topic ban will make things much improved for both skeptics and proponents. Rational debates can be had and there are skeptics who bring better references to the table anyways resulting in a better article. QuackGuru's tendentious editing style, his frequent edit warring, disruptive practices, and countless other violations at Chiropractic need to be reigned in. His contributions do not outweigh his liabilities, specifically at Chiropractic and related articles. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vet Chiro

Try to watch your language on the talk page and not get too worked up. Don't want to give them any ammunition. Also, since you're on 1RR, don't re-insert too much of the sourced text in one day. DigitalC (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

3RR on Chiropractic, per a complaint at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)