Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 20 April 2006

Welcome from the Wikidocs

Greetings. I met you through the hypothalamus page. There is a group of physicians that is keeping track of medical things around here. It is a nice group. There is a general page on medical topics at User_talk:Jfdwolff/WikiDoc. A user named User:Jfdwolff has done a great ob of alerting medical professionals to it. I was going to alert her to your being on Misplaced Pages, but she is gone til sometime in March, so I am taking it upon myself to welcome you. JFD keeps track of the medical page orgaization. The wikidoc group seems mostly physicians, but we have other knowledgable people in the group, and by that measure you are qualified in spades.

Again, it is a pleasure having an academic who is such a good communicator on Misplaced Pages. Welcome to the community.

Steve Holland Kd4ttc 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, saying that I keep track of the medical page organisation is an overstatement. The WikiProject (at WP:CLINMED) is a central hub of activity for clinicians, medical students and of course academics. Given your experience in medical scientific writing, you appear to be uniquely equipped to present hard scientific information in a form that is accessible for the informed layperson. I have personally found writing for Misplaced Pages immensely useful in learning how to present clinical science to patients.

Despite what Steve says, I'm actually male. :-) JFW | T@lk 20:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Neuroscience

Mr. Gleng: Judging from your edits you are interested in neuroendocrinology. We've got a group over at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Neuroscience who could use some expertise in that area. If you'd like to join us we'd be honored. Cheers! Semiconscious • talk 01:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Addictive, isn't it?

Eh? NIce edits. Kd4ttc 23:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Requesting references...

re hormesis. There are a bunch of templates that people slap onto articles and talk pages at WP:TM, including things like "Verify facts". I don't know how effective they are, I haven't used 'em (only removed a few), but you never know. Talk pages can work. As far as I can tell, though, it's mostly DIY! IMO (one of...thousands), it's better to "wait for references" on existing stuff, and include references on new material you're adding, rather than remove anything but the obviously wrong or...misguided, so if you can't sort out, others may come along and do it... Work-in-progress and all that! Hope that helps... --Tsavage 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lateralisation

Cheers! I felt good after creating hat page started but then it devolved into protracted arguments about "mathematics" with another user. I admit I was definitely not as amicable as I could have been. Anyway, it left a bad taste in my mouth after that encounter. I'm glad someone appreciates it. :) Semiconscious • talk 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Gleng, the categories are already messed up big time. Plz, stop making the mess bigger. You can't put an article into a category and the parent category of that category. Also it doesn't make sence to put the receptors for some of the neurotransmitters into the Category:Neurotransmitters. -- Boris 07:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

We really need subcategories in Neuroscience that will cover the receptors. You want to do that? -- Boris 18:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

You're very welcome. I should double-check the math with a calculator, though (and will today), I did it in my head. The figure for the Earth comes from a website, but given that there's 10 kg in the Solar System, and assuming the Earth is at most a part in a thousand, it's in the right ballpark. I'll check that too. In any case, regardless of the exact figures, having figures makes it clearer just what we mean by "very improbable." "Improbable" doesn't convey the same sense that "you'd need enough pills to fill a tenth of an Olympic swimming pool" does. -- Pakaran 15:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OFC

Cheers dude. Yeah I have got in the habit of writing "passive voice" stuff for lay articles... ta! --PaulWicks 10:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

3 RR violation on Homeopathy

You've been blocked for 3 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. PLease refrain from any more reverts for some time when the block expires. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NatSel

I see how it goes. I think splitting the article will solve mosy of the problems, as the main discussion is between Darwin adapts and current day scientists. KimvdLinde 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the copy editing, I need it :-) English is not my first language, and being somewhat dyslectic does not help. KimvdLinde 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vaccinationist

Thanks. Your edits greatly improved that article. I have been thinking the way forward may actualy be to do a complete restart, and suggested this in the talk page. I got as far as taking the anti-catholicism (a model of civilised discourse and clear writing) article and then by doing a couple of global search and replace substituting into the structure of that article. Nobody else has joined in so far, so I've not been in a rush. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anti-vaccinationist/temp is it. Midgley 11:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Please respond to my answer posted on the talk page of Chiropractic. ackoz 18:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome. I've been watching for awhile and appreciate your balanced input. I'm not sure I'll be able to do any better, so please don't go too far! I think you are a very calming influence and both Steth and Fyslee obviously respect your input. I just saw an article today in "Dynamic Chiropractic" - a monthly magazine that has the headline "Chiropractic on Misplaced Pages: Controversy and opportunity" on the front page - so we may be getting more visitors. I don't know if that will be a good thing or not=) but it could get interesting. -- Dematt 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I had already read the article on-line, and now having received my copy a couple days ago, have read the paper edition. I do hope we get more chiropractors as editors. I do fear that if they are newcomers to Wikpedia, some of them may see this as an opportunity to use the article as a frontpage advertisement for chiropractic, which isn't the purpose of the article or Misplaced Pages. I'm basically inclusionist by nature, and think the article should include coverage (short!) of all major and minor POV. It should be done in such a way that readers without any knowledge of the subject will get presented with basic knowledge about chiropractic, including both sides of the controversies, and still be left to make up their own minds. Editorializing mustn't "decide for them." I have written some of my POV on NPOV. I'd appreciate your comments -- Fyslee 18:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

More from Dynamic Chiropractic:

Dr. Whalen's ad hominem remark characterizing the Council on Chiropractic Practice (CCP) guidelines as "touted by a small fringe group" is disingenuous. According to How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors, published in 2003 by the Institute for Social Research at Ohio Northern University, "For all practical purposes, there is no debate on the vertebral subluxation complex. Nearly 90% want to retain the VSC as a term. Similarly, almost 90% do not want the adjustment limited to musculoskeletal conditions. The profession – as a whole – presents a united front regarding the subluxation and the adjustment."2 Ninety percent of the profession can hardly be considered a "small fringe group." (my emphasis - Fyslee)

If there is a fringe group within the profession, it composed of the 10 percent who renounce the subluxation and wish to limit chiropractic care to persons presenting with musculoskeletal symptoms.

This should put to rest the idea that there is no controversy in the profession, or that those who believe in VS are a small fringe group. The majority of chiros do believe in VS, and that fact needs to be made clear in the article. -- Fyslee 18:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Whaleto RFC

I've upgraded Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Whaleto to include the assoiciated conduct issues. Could you glance at the amended version to check that you still endorse it. Thanks. Tearlach 04:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

PS The mice spoof is a copyvio from The Onion . Tearlach 14:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)