Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:25, 24 May 2014

This is Neuraxis's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello DVMt, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Collaboration

Greetings! Referring to your suggestion at my Talk Page regarding the development of articles, you wrote: "... How about you take a look and give me some feedback and we can start to prioritize where we're going to begin...." How is the editing going? Also I was wondering, where might I take a look on your current version under work? :P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. Take a look at this link. This is a remodelled version of the article that is far superior in both tone, weight to MSK, actually informing readers what chiropractors do, think and practice as well as the research that underlies their distinct approach to health. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:DVMt/sandbox DVMt (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi DVMt!

I have revised the old Chriopractic article, as well as you new version here in the sandbox. I must say, reading the old version was somewhat horrifying: it was just a mish-mash of one-liners with citations with little or no connection from one sentence to the next. However, I am extremly pleased with your edit here. Well, as a WP:OVEERLINK editor I do have a dozen of links to be remove on my list, but it does not affect the structure in question ;)

Anyway, my comments would be as follows:

+ A clear "red string" to follow

+ Great appearance

+ Logical division of statements (not a jigsaw puzzle like the previous one)

+ Introduces a lot better the main believes of the doctrine itself; criticism is always for the "Controversy\Criticism" section

Some remarks:

• Sections: "History", Osteopathic medicine vs chiropractic medicine", and Philosophy contain pretty much the same text.

* Sections: "Treatment, and Manual and manipulative therapy contain pretty much the same text.

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I agree we should avoid duplication and I'll attempt to merge the sections. I was going over some recent archives and see there is repeated concern about undue weight given to the fringe faction and less about the MSK side of things. I have seen some good commentary and suggestions by RexxS and Zad68 in the recent archives. We can use those as a guide how to navigate through these waters. If you know of other level headed editors who might be able to comment or discuss these issues it will be helpful so we can have other opinions as well. Understanding the factions of the profession is critical too, otherwise what the mainstream approach is and what is fringe. DVMt (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! And thanks for your comment at WP:ANI. I just noticed that your message at my Talk page is still unanswered (sorry for that)! Anyway, you asked if we should present the changes to be made first at some sort of WP noticeboard... Hmm, I've been kind of wobbling between the two options here, but I think you might be right. When the matter is discussed on a forum more public, the resolution achieved will be a more robust one. We just have to make sure that enough editors who have been involved in editing the article in the past will also find their way to that noticeboard (which I don't doubt at all). If we just rely on the discussions had on the article Talk page, sure those could be gone through more quickly but I don't think the resolution would be such an enduring one.Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and when you decide to publish your version, I already have my edits (hopefully improvements) ready for that (based on your sandbox version)! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI on alternative medicine articles

Hi DVMt! How are you? I hope you have time to look at these two boards: User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour and Sockpuppetry at article Traditional Chinese medicine. It seems that QuackGuru is now publicly accusing me of "following him from article to another", along with a punch of other accusations. In the first one he took me to WP:ANI, and in the second one he is making these accusations in front of an administrator, Jmh649 (weirdly enough, he just came out of the blue to Jmh649's Talk page even my post there had nothing to do with him). Anyway, I'd appreciate if you had the time to take a look! :) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! The issue is now at WP:AN3 due to QuackGuru's violation of WP:3RR on alt-med articles. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There already seems to be the inference that QG is using reliable sources and we're not. I hope that the admins focus on the editing practices and the 3RR and not see him as some kind of martyr. DVMt (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

MFD

See Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack, stay off my page, as I warned you once before. This isn't OR but a way to keep track of references. Nice try to censor again. DVMt (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing deletion tags

Do not remove deletion tags until the deletion discussion is finished. Doing this again will result in your account being blocked.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on tone left for Kww at his Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Call for secondary over primary source

Left a long explanatory comment for you, DVMt, at the talk page of the editor who recently deleted your primary source. If still engaged/interested, see that message, at his Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion here, because I am trying to retire Leprof. Will look here, and reply to you in the mean time. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I await your response and look forward to learning from you. DVMt (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR report closed

This is to inform you that an edit-warring noticeboard report in which you were involved has been closed. It is to further notify you that at the next sign of edit-warring on any pseudoscience related articles, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't part of any edit warring so this unprofessional and terse need not apply. No need to threaten anything at this point in time. Regards, DVMt (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to review your edit history without noting your chronic edit-warring over chiropractic topics as well as the multiple times you have used sockpuppets in efforts to further your goals. Terseness is a good thing, as it gets the point across in a way that flowery language does not. If you edit war again over any pseudoscience related article, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely.—Kww(talk) 15:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You're missing a few steps, and we see things differently. A warning to QG for his chronic problems would be noted too, right? You are being consistent across the board, right? DVMt (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Slow edit warring at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories

You previously deleted an inline template but you were reverted. Please stop removing the tags without a good reason. You were recently warned by User:Kww to stop edit warring. QuackGuru (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)