Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 21 August 2009

Welcome!

Homoeopathy

Please note that there is an Arbitration Committee ruling involving pages relevant to homoeopathy - see the Talk:Homeopathy page. Any major changes to the page, and especially to the lead, really need to be discussed on the talk page to achieve consensus for them. There are a number of issues with regard to your proposed edits that need to be discussed there. Brunton (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I have offered discussion on the Talk page. Dbrisinda (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skinwalker (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Dbrisinda (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Advices

You are part of the discussion here --JeanandJane (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Dbrisinda (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Think again about tagging the article. I agree with you but an administrator might block "both sides" for "disruption".--JeanandJane (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC) --JeanandJane (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: some recent edits

Please make sure you are aware of WP:CANVASS. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue concerning the possible ban of a valued member of the community who has strongly challenged other members' contentions, is a subject that involves the greater community and *not* just an ill-disposed sub-group of the community. Why is it that this information was being kept "secret" by not announcing it in any way? Dbrisinda (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It was announced on the Admin Incidents noticeboard. That is where these community discussions happen. My note was simply to make you aware of the rules about canvassing. Verbal chat 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I observe that Dbrisinda noticed Shot_info as well as me, so I hardly think it looks like a one-sided canvass, but rather a solicitation of a wider range of views in an important discussion. —Whig (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you (and everyone else concerned here) know very well that I'm a relatively new editor here at Misplaced Pages unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes administrative side of things. This is the first I've heard of Admin Incidents Noticeboards. You and others are relying on my ignorance of these technical details to force a one-sided debate. If you were truly operating in good faith you would have notified me, given my very visible contributions on the talk page, as well as notifying others who appear to have a more neutral POV regarding homeopathy as it appears from their contributions to the talk page.

"The better the information it has, the better democracy works. Silence and secrecy are never good for it." — Katie Adie Dbrisinda (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I requested arbitration enforcement for your edits in Homeopathy

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#homeopathy. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. People are talking about your conduct (!?) above(and mine as well - but less for now). The whole dispute tag issue and more.--JeanandJane (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am under the impression that you are doing what you genuinely think is best and appropriate under the circumstances.

However, I would like to invite you to reconsider your views (both administrative and content-related) in light of the evidence that I have advanced with full intention and openness towards discussion and debate. I do perceive a strong bias in the representation of this topic as it stands, outlining my concerns explicitly, and I'm not the only one—there are several editors that have expressed this sentiment as well. I really do believe it's quite fair and reasonable to tag the article temporarily as disputed. However, you seem to disagree.

In truth, I feel little effort has been given to *genuinely* and *honestly* contest, deconstruct and nullify my reasons and arguments. You have made some effort in your statements on publication bias, which I appreciate. But I responded showing evidence for the other side of that debate, on which the community has remained silent.

In any case, let come what will. I trust that truth will eventually find its way. Dbrisinda (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I made the report because the talk page is becoming a battleground. Topics get piled up on each other and re-presented in new sections. I hadn't spotted your reply to my comment because I had missed it in the flood of comments (150 messages in 4 days!) in un-ordered discussions. This is not the way to discuss changes to the page.

(Btw, in reply to your comment, you should add the studies to Homeopathy#Research_on_medical_effectiveness, notice that Cauffield is already there, and you already saw the reactions to including Kiene, so add the other ones first) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, making messages of 11 KB of text whith 6 different topics put together and add also another version of a paragraph is not likely to make the discussion advance. I usually make one separate section for every issue. And then try to make small changes as issues get solved, as opposed to trying to change a whole lead paragraph in one go with several different changes, some of the which are still in discussion. Finally, sometimes issues are rejected and one has to accept that he is not going to get a certain change into the article. Just my 2 cents from my experience editing. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue here was that there were alot of criticisms that arose from several users for the particular message in question, and so I chose to deal with the lot of them topically in one message instead of individually. Unfortunately, this made for a much larger message than I would have wished. A second problem is serious off-topic digressions and distractions which begin as marginally off-topic, but then gradually morph into something wholly other; a kind of unintended Fabian discussion creep. A third problem is about the 3rd paragraph lead: it's too difficult to deal with it on a sentence by sentence basis, since changes to one sentence will affect other sentences. I still think the only way to deal with this particular issue is to take the 3rd paragraph as a whole. FWIW, I am taking your suggestions to heart. Thanks. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Design of the studies

Vithoulkas has expressed his view on the quality of the homeopathic trials . I think you might be aware of this which contains info about the design of homeopathic trials - a controversial issue even among homeopaths. If you look at his website you will see that he implies that the efficacy of the homeopathic medicine depends also on its preparation. Also this is very interesting. Regards.--JeanandJane (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That was quite fascinating and very informative, especially the first one. Yes, this is a bit of a problem isn't it? I simultaneously, and surrendipitously stumbled across an interesting related statistic that states that most medical, surgical procedures and drug usage are not backed by studies—only by anecdotal evidence. According to the U.S. Government's Office of Technology Assessment (Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment: Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978), only 10-20% of all medical procedures and off-label drug usage are backed by clinical studies. The editorial at NaturalNews.com says:

"The problem isn't with the use of anecdotal evidence. It's with the double standard applied by the establishment (medical and regulatory) that holds complementary medicine to an absurdly higher standard, allowing medical doctors to do pretty much whatever they want. If informed anecdotal evidence is allowable for 85% of all medical procedure and drug usage, why is alternative health held to an impossible 0% standard? Millions of people worldwide testify that homeopathy cures their illnesses yet apparently that cannot be construed as 'evidence'."

Maybe the battle for greater openness and forthrightness is not to be waged in the field of the 'quality' peer-reviewed journal after all? I think the Lancet is a good example of what happens when integrity-based peer-review processes fail. It seems credibility has been seriously eroded in the minds of many scientists and reseachers. But this might well expedite the process of which Vithoulkas speaks. Dbrisinda (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI on DanaUllman

As you have participated at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Choices, this is to notify you that I've added 2 more choices. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration in notifying me. Dbrisinda (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

You know, MiszaBot is going to in a few days do exactly what I did by manually archiving, which will bork the reference tags in exactly the same way. In the meantime, Talk:Homeopathy will just get less accessible and take even longer to load. The solution is to replace instances of <ref name=foo /> with <ref name=foo>{{Citation}}</ref> if you feel like doing it then. None of the orphaned reference names are being actively discussed, so I fail to see why it matters. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I didn't know using <ref name=foo>{{Citation}}</ref> would prevent this from happening. Alright, I'll try and do this then over the next couple of days. Thanks. Dbrisinda (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. If you feel like gnoming {{reflist}} into any of the archives which already have footnotes, that would also be useful. One further caveat: if you have two distinct references with the same name, the second one will be ignored without providing a warning: in the case of <ref name=foo>{{Citation1}}</ref> ... <ref name=foo>{{Citation2}}</ref>, Citation2 will be parsed as just another instance of Citation1. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Few Compare To

Hi. I asked you before about this ( being rhetorical) : what about rephrasing using " few + actual number "compared to mainstream studies" + number , favorable to Homeopathy, negative, inconclusive + number. Is it a good idea ? --JeanandJane (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi J&J, I would be for it if it was all that would be accepted; but it feels so unnecessary, and all because "they" want to keep the reference to Time (1995) that says "they are few" which is completely out of date and no longer correct. My arguments for this, in the company of reasonable and thoughtful people would be heard for what they are: reasonable and logical. A few of those editors are just impossible, with I think no understanding or appreciation of logic or reason. Blind to everything except that which deviates from their personal agendas. Perhaps it's a language issue and they are just not able to "get it." But I'm inclined to think it's something other. In any case, I'm rapidly becoming bored with it all. Dbrisinda (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Translation"

As you might expect, intentionally misinterpreting my words for me, as you did here , is not the least bit helpful in a collaborative environment and consensus building. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL.Yobol (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)