| Revision as of 07:35, 7 June 2009 editSeeyou (talk | contribs)1,680 edits →Past Progress with fellow editors← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:59, 7 June 2009 edit undoSeeyou (talk | contribs)1,680 edits →A conflict of interest ?!Next edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| * | * | ||
| ==A conflict of interest ?!== | |||
| Which parties might be involved in editing the Bates method wikipedia article ? | |||
| * NVI practioners. | |||
| * Skeptics. | |||
| * Opticians | |||
| * Researchers. | |||
| * Lasik surgeons | |||
| * Ophthalmologists | |||
| * Seeyou | |||
| * PSWG1920 | |||
| * Famousdog | |||
| * Ronz | |||
| * Sammualtheghost | |||
| ===Signals of COI=== | |||
| Sammy possessing the Woods report. Invititations to share have failed. | |||
| One editor provides a reference. Anohter makes it available on the world wide web. ( Welwin Margs report is made avaiable why is woods report completly unavailable !) | |||
| ==Overskeptic Signals and Ingorance== | |||
| ==Previous cabal cases == | ==Previous cabal cases == | ||
Revision as of 15:59, 7 June 2009
You cannot by reasoning correct a man of ill opinion which by reasoning he never acquired." He might have gone a step further and stated that neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts, can you convince some people that an opinion which they have accepted on authority is wrong. Quote W.H. Bates page 304 Perfect Eyesight without glasses.
Accommodation is a law as certain as the law of gravity. Yet most of us don’t trust the law because of self-doubt or confusion. You may wonder, Can I really become good at this. Will I be able to accomplish my goal Will I find succes. A more useful question is not Can I, but rather how can I. Progress is mechanical : If you practice something over time with attention and commitment to improve, you will. Quote Dan Millman.
What is the statement of opthalmology ?
Myopia is generally hereditary. Seeyou notes : They don't say it's hereditary they suggest it is hereditary.
Refractive errors occur when there is a mismatch between the length of the eye and its optical power. These mismatches usually originate during childhood and are thought to be affected by both hereditary and environmental influences. Seeyou notes : They don't say it's hereditary they suggest it is hereditary.
Myopia is Myopia is usually a hereditary condition that is detected during childhood and continues to worsen until it finally stabilizes, usually in adulthood. Seeyou notes : They don't say it's hereditary they suggest it is hereditary.
The increasing prevalence appears to be due to environmental changes involving near work, rather than to a genetic failure of emmetropisation ( = normal eye ).
The Bates method is not about science it is about politics. Quote from the talkpage of the Bates method article.
Revision history statistics of the BM aricle
A conflict of interest ?!
Which parties might be involved in editing the Bates method wikipedia article ?
- NVI practioners.
- Skeptics.
- Opticians
- Researchers.
- Lasik surgeons
- Ophthalmologists
- Seeyou
- PSWG1920
- Famousdog
- Ronz
- Sammualtheghost
Signals of COI
Sammy possessing the Woods report. Invititations to share have failed. One editor provides a reference. Anohter makes it available on the world wide web. ( Welwin Margs report is made avaiable why is woods report completly unavailable !)
Overskeptic Signals and Ingorance
Previous cabal cases
Edits for analysis for arbitration !
For arbitration. Go to one of the biggest bookstore ]. Do a search on Bates method. Check the selling rate. Unanswered Q : Why can't one of the biggest authorities menioned ?
Original research very clearly explained
List of original research list BM / NVI article
- The title of the article is incorrect. To avoid original research the 2 articles should be seperated
The are currently 2 article natural vision improvement and Bates method. The natural vision improvement article redirects to the Bates method article. By doing so the suggestion is made the Bates method and natural vision improvement are equal. According to the only available referenced definition the Bates method and natural vision improvement are unequal.
The referenced definitions :
Attempt to discuss have been made. No discussion has taken place. Misplaced Pages contains Original Research by stating the Natural vision improvement is equal to the Bates method. By redirecting the NVI article to the BM article. See the link with the correct referenced article :
The infobox in the BM article, stating or suggesting the BM is pseudoscience. No serious reference is provided. Pure original research.
Past Progress with fellow editors
Some examples of famousdog contributions to the bates method article.
( scroll completly down, famousdog lists the batesmethod under Pseudoscience ! )
( famousdog saying the mind is the brain ?! )
Take a look at this video on youtube : Q : Did her mind change her brain or changed her mind her brain ? The essence of BM/NVI is about mind over body. Completely ignored by my felloweditors !
( great contribution but \martin Garder was not an Optometrists or ophthalmologists but a popular American mathematics and science writer ) ( And there is / should be an authority regarding this subject. Unanswered Q : Why is ophthalmology so vague regarding the BM/NVI ? )
( The genetic theory is the suggestion of the orthodox vision problems are genetic, but scientists still have not found any proof in our DNA )
( famosudog editing published information )
( famousdog showing no respect to an editor )
( When you can make this amount of edits you are being paid. Does wikipedia really give objective information ?! Note these edits were done in less then a month !!! And look at what kind of articles these edits are made !)
Seeyou (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Paid editing is not a breach of any policy necessarily (but it does bring up a COI question). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so... Where's your evidence of palm, greasing? -Jéské 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I resent the implication that I am being paid. In fact I am simply interested in this topic and have therefore made time in my (busy) schedule to make sure that this page is not hijacked by Bates practitioners and Bates advocates. Seeyou's behaviour amounts to harrassment, cyberstalking and clearly a personal attack. All of which are, I believe, discouraged on Misplaced Pages. Lets see if I that's enough to get you banned, since you haven't made a useful edit in MONTHS. Famousdog (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration
The arbitration process within the Misplaced Pages community exists to impose binding solutions to Misplaced Pages disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve.
The Committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct (including improper editing) where all other routes to agreement have failed, and makes rulings to address problems in the editorial community. However it will not make editorial statements or decisions about how articles should read ("content decisions"), and users should not ask the Committee to make these kinds of decisions, as it will not do so.
Q1 to Arbitration Committee : Does wikipedia represent the opinion of the dominant editors of an article or is the content of wikipedia articles based on written published reliable notable serious references which can be verified by anyone ? ( the opinion of the dominant editors of an article since none of them is able to provide another reference defining natural vision improvement ! )
- {{ | publisher=new world library, Novano California | title=Complementary Body mind mastery | Isbn 1-57731-094-2}}