Misplaced Pages

User talk:69.178.41.55: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:04, 7 August 2006 edit70.232.110.230 (talk) →POV tags on Orthomolecular medicine and Megavitamin therapy← Previous edit Revision as of 00:01, 8 August 2006 edit undo69.178.41.55 (talk) →POV tags on Orthomolecular medicine and Megavitamin therapy: notes & recommendationNext edit →
Line 46: Line 46:


::] says "The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and '''including a mention of its notable controversies'''." The most notable fact about megavitamin theory is that it is dangerous, objected to by leading scientists, and widely criticized. Yet, not only has this been deleted from the lead paragraph by your , but it has been deleted from the article all together. -- ] 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC) ::] says "The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and '''including a mention of its notable controversies'''." The most notable fact about megavitamin theory is that it is dangerous, objected to by leading scientists, and widely criticized. Yet, not only has this been deleted from the lead paragraph by your , but it has been deleted from the article all together. -- ] 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

:::Alright, I have noted the controversy element in the lead paragraph of Megavitamin (already was in orthomed), thank you. The article already attempts to fairly note & address the "danger" concerns of conventional physicians, who frequently have remarkably little training in clinical nutrition of any stripe; are subject to intense bombardment both in medical school in texts that are, well, "conventional" POV, rather than general SPOV; ubiquitous outright pharmaceutical propaganda; and, of course, various pervasive forms of "incentive" and conflict of interest. I would appreciate your effort to edit the "Controversy and relationship..." section in a measured and proportionate way after taking a hard look at the Talk pages at ] and ] as well as some of the extensive references in the articles.--] 00:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:01, 8 August 2006

Thanks for your contributions to Orthomolecular medicine. Youve been around a while but have not yet recieved a Welcome, so here is the standard piece. I recommend you get a user name as described as it adds weight to your arguments in the community. Lumos3 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my Talk page or you can type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome!

Thank you again for contributing to Misplaced Pages. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

RfArb

I am listing the Orthomolecular medicine dispute at the RfArb. After I add the case, please feel free to insert your statement there. ackoz 09:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I confused you with 64, anyway, it would be better if you used a nickname. Please, add your position statement to the RfArb page. ackoz 11:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake

(copied from front user page) Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ackoz

User:Ackoz requested that his/her user page and talk page be deleted so they could not have accounts listed on other sites associated with their account on this site. Or something like that. - Mark 04:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

POV tags on Orthomolecular medicine and Megavitamin therapy

Both articles have severe POV problems. See WP:NPOV and the talk pages, where the problems have not been resolved. Please don't remove the tags. -- 70.232.110.230 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says "The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms. It should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies." The most notable fact about megavitamin theory is that it is dangerous, objected to by leading scientists, and widely criticized. Yet, not only has this been deleted from the lead paragraph by your edit, but it has been deleted from the article all together. -- 70.232.110.230 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I have noted the controversy element in the lead paragraph of Megavitamin (already was in orthomed), thank you. The article already attempts to fairly note & address the "danger" concerns of conventional physicians, who frequently have remarkably little training in clinical nutrition of any stripe; are subject to intense bombardment both in medical school in texts that are, well, "conventional" POV, rather than general SPOV; ubiquitous outright pharmaceutical propaganda; and, of course, various pervasive forms of "incentive" and conflict of interest. I would appreciate your effort to edit the "Controversy and relationship..." section in a measured and proportionate way after taking a hard look at the Talk pages at orthomed and megavitamin as well as some of the extensive references in the articles.--69.178.41.55 00:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)