Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:24, 3 September 2006

• /Archive 1: 4 July 2004 - 15 May 2006
• /Archive 2: 15 May 2006 - Tiananmen Massacre Memorial Day 2006

Please see my Editing principles for pseudoscience articles

Hello

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! BTW, I saw you on the page of SlimVirgin.

--Bhadani 15:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Maxwell Article

I respect your position, Mccready, but why do you feel this particular individual (G. Patrick Maxwell) is worthy of inclusion? Would you please explain?MollyBloom 04:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I added additional research, which supports my contention that while Dr. Maxwell may be a good surgeon, he is not notable in the encyclopedic sense. I think you might be interested in reading an updated history of the lattisimus flap, an overview of major achievements from 1897 to present. There is a rundown of the notable contributions in the last 30 years. Dr. Maxwell's name is not even among the many surgeons listed. I must say that this was an interesting article,. I would like to find out more about this procedure myself. But back to the issue of notability and encyclopedic merit, Dr. Maxwell simply does not qualify for this. There was one citation to his work on the lat flap in the 1978 journal, but no other citations, It is not that his work was bad, at all, It is just that in the context of the field, his work is no more notable than many many academics./clinicians, which I had been saying all along,

As to the 'moral judgment'....It is significant that the issue involved lack of informed consent regarding the use of silicone breast implants. It is more than a mere morals issue. But his legal (and other) problems aside, this doctor is simply not that notable in the field. I'm sure he is 'prominent' but not an 'internationally renowned expert' as many of the surgeons I found when I researched these areas.MollyBloom 06:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in on Chiro

I found this whole discussion interesting. I honestly don't know what to think about chiros, and for many years was afraid to go to one, for fear of really screwing something up,. When I was sick a couple years ago, my stress level was very high, my muscles tense and back hurt. I went to a local chiro who did a lot of adjustments, some muscle exercises, heating pad (essentially) and then a massage. I have to admit I came out of there feeling like a million bucks. But the relief was short term, as is any good massage, heat etc. And it makes some sense that the benefit is relief of short term back pain. I also saw that article that was mentioned. But I don't disminimize the value of that kind of exercise, stretching, massage, and heat applications. For a long time when I was very ill (with MS and lupus flares) I found this to be a lifesaver. My stress level instantly reduced. I haven't followed all of the discussion, but I believe at least some type of Chiro has a place in conjunction with 'traditional med'. I wouldn't go to chiro for carpel tunnel, or herniated disk etc. Come to think of it, I wouldn't go to a surgeon for those either, unless it became utterly unbearable. I have the same concern that no surgery is often better than scrxymewed up surgery. MollyBloom 07:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)::

Saw your 'rules'. Anecdotal evidence is not an oxymoron. It may not be very good evidence, but it is evidence. Eg it should not affect the admission of evidence, but rather the weight it is given. It is often anecdotal reports that prompt closer study. I probably am looking at this as a lawyer, or maybe an engineer, I don't know, but I wouldn't discount this so readily.

You have a problem with creationsim? Don't you know that the very existance of geolgoical information is merely evidence that the devil is real and present? The devil just put those sedimentary and volcanic layers there to deceive us. The first time I heard this as a young engineer in Salt Lake City (NOT where I am from), I had to sit down. I was not working around high school dropouts, but PhD engineers. Having grown up the daughter of a geologist, I had some difficulty swallowing this. I had even more difficulty believing that anyone with a high school education would believe it. But life is strange, and the power of religion even stranger,MollyBloom 07:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As to UFOs -- you haven't seen my 3 month old black toy poodle puppy flying through one room to another. He frequently is an unidentified flying object.MollyBloom 07:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So a pox on your rigid rules. How could we exclude massage and good stretching, the comfort of knowing that we cannot rely on what we see and observe, and flying black hairballs? What a dreary life you must lead.MollyBloom 07:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

More on Chiro's

Presumably the previous chiro commenter has his tounge in his cheek, which is good for us, but I find that the university educated biologists who 'believe' in say 'horizontal evolution' changes, is a yes, (see English Moths changing colour) but speciation and advances in complexity such developing eyes from photo detectors is a no way. These poeple sometimes fail to see the tongue.

I too have been to a Chiro to get something fixed, and indeed he helped when the doctor had up to that time not. Massage and relaxation are wondefully effective in allowing things to move back into place. He moved all sorts of other stuff for other 'reasons' those things move around in my back all by themselves whenever I stretch. In fact the long term proactive cure has been to condition myself to stretch regularly during the day and let things slide back before the muscles spasm. The doctors correctly prescribed medication to relieve the spasm. The problem with that was the medication was non specific and nowhere near strong enough for the job and by comparisson massage was a much more targeted treatement(a magic bullet). That doctors in my experience seem unwilling to prescribe massage, a well proven targetted relaxation treatement, instead of a non specific drug, is either an economic imperative of the health system, a social imperative from the patient such as when antibiotics are overprescribed for viruses, or a potential problem for their own scientific status/bias. This last point if true would be pounced on by pseudo scientists as evidence of "we are as scientific as X" where it is only evidence that X is unscientific and hence may be headed for categorisation as pseudo science. Thus although his effect produced via a really good massage was what I needed, most of what he said and his use of magnets was scary pseudo science as was his false 'proof' to me of the magnets effectiveness. When I purposefully was not weakened by the presence of the magnet beside my deltoid he seemed genuinely perplexed and rather than distress him further on the repeated demonstration I was compliant with the socially engineered trick. If I had not been, the extra suddeness of vigor with which the downward force was applied to my arm when the magnet was present would have hurt. In the time since I have discovered a methodology for applying heat and support to achieve the same ends without either the mumbo jumbo or the risk he would move the wrong thing as well as fix my back. As is probably apparent I fully endorse your views of labelling things pseudo science and will refer to it as a resource, to guide me. Delete some or all of this comment as space requires. AccurateOne 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks. I agree with you about western medicine too. People often mistakenly accuse me of supporting it and supporting drug companies. Far from it. I apply the same principles to it as to pseudoscience. (I took a space out of your post. A line beginning with a space creates a box. Mccready 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment left on SlimVirgin's talk

Hello Mccready, I removed the comment that you left on SlimVirgin's talk page. I did it for two reasons. First, it was rude. Telling someone that you are glad that they are leaving is uncivil. (Also it is wrong to add back comments left by another editor that break WP:AGF.) The second reason is that you were recently given a short block from editing Misplaced Pages web site for wikistalking SlimVirgin. It was discussed on AN/I and agreed that the block was the correct action based on your behavior. The comment left on SV talk page is another example of tendentious editing.

Mccready, I am concerned that you are not responding well to the many editors that leave you good, fair suggestions. You need to take their advice. I fear that the people that are reaching out to help you will give up, thinking that it is a lost cause. Take care, FloNight 13:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Flo, accuracy is important when creating an encyclopedia and you have demonstrated your lack in this respect. I DID NOT say I was glad she left. The other comments were added back in after discussion with Bish and Henry Flower (who did not delete them again as he had done previoulsy). You are in error in assuming my editing and communication has not changed from the time of the block (which roughtly 20% of users opposed in fact). I am concerned that inaccurate comments like yours are unhelpful. Please show me an example of what you would consider a bad edit since the contentious block made under the new definition of wikistalking (ie sans harassment). Let me make it clear again. At NO stage did I harass SV. The material you removed was legitimate criticsm and every piece of it was true - as the record shows. Mccready 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, it is probably best to agree to disagree for now. Through no fault of yours, I don't have the emotional stamina to discuss this with you today. From our email discussion I think you understand why. I'll be in touch in a couple of day. Take care, FloNight 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, I am at this point with McCready as well. He consistently leaves abusive posts for editors that he disagrees with on the article which I work on, Chiropractic. I find him uncooperative, rude and egocentric. He has a "my way or the highway" approach and in his eyes can never be wrong. I have tried to help him, but that only seems to motivate him to get nastier. I fear the retribution he will have for me just for leaving this post, but I feel this needs to be said. McCready, we are trying to help you to help make Misplaced Pages friendlier. Please help us help you. Levine2112 17:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The notion of consistent abuse is hyperbole in the extreme to coin a tautology. To illustrate your claim Levine 2112 I think you'd have to post at least three examples of ABUSIVE posts. I doubt if you could find one. I don't go in for abuse. The challenge is there for you to meet or to apologise. Happy editing. Mccready 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You doubt that I could find one? Really? Most recently, here is one:#1 Even out of context this one is incredibley inciteful and condescending. Here's the main point, McCready. There are a lot of editors who have a beef with your bully-tactics and know-it-all-ism, as evidenced by your talk pages which are full of complaints relating to such. My advice to you: Take a hint. Levine2112 22:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112, you jumped on Flo's erroneous comments like the greek chorus entering stage right, squeak squeak. And this is the only evidence of abusive comments??? If my rigorous logic is interpreted as bullying and know it all - welcome to the joys of editing an encyclopedia cooperatively. After 6 requests and after your consistent (that's consistent) inability to provide evidence asked for on the chiropractic page and after your consistently (that's consistenly) reverting without evidence, this is what I wrote:

::Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear Levine2112, all I'm asking is for ONE study. You CLAIM all support you. Well, please, pretty please, give one. One would be enough, only one, not ten, not twenty, not a hundred, not hundreds. Just one. Why is that hard for you? And also, the problem with the Cooperstein link remains (this is the seventh time now - has anybody got a copy of the study - if that is indeed THE one that Levine2112 wants to rely on. I might add that even the category listing for it in pubmed is erroneous – it is not randomized or controlled. Meantime I'm placing disputed in or perhpaps a big big tag at the top might be more appropriate? We've come a long way here, dear Levine2112. Don't blow it.Mccready 04:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And you call that abusive. Well I'm not sure abusive is quite the right term but I can see how it might upset you and I'll try harder not to hurt your feelings in the heat of the kitchen in future. But I do notice you have now changed the charge to one of being "inciteful" (a word I do not understand) and "condescending". Given the altered nature of your accusation, may I take that as an apology? .... Happy editing. Mccready 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you really this oblivious to your rudeness? How many people need to tell you this before you believe it? There have been enough users who have complained about you to have a scientific consensus that you are rude, and yet your defense mechanism is on high to protect your ego. Please be more considerate and less egotistical.

Oh, and the fact that you have made one request six times and I have given you the same answer each time (and you still don't get it) is more evidence of your stubbornness. Levine2112 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate debate over the boundaries of pseudoscience

Hi Kevin, this is copied from my comments on the Reiki talk page with minor modifications...

"Pseudoscience" means "something misrepresented as being scientific" (i.e., as being in compliance with the scientific method). Some have pointed to Reiki proponents' use of the term "science" as evidence of such misrepresentation, but that logic fails to take into account that the term has a generic meaning beyond the scientific method. It can mean simply an "Organized body of knowledge; any particular art or discipline". (Variations on this definition appear in other dictionaries; e.g. Merriam-Webster has "knowledge obtained through study or practice".) Thus, a Reiki practitioner may legitimately refer to Reiki as a "science" and simply mean that it is systematic. Similarly, TCM uses the term "theory" (which like "science" has a generic sense) and is systematic, but is widely regarded as being a different paradigm than science. The issue of misrepresentation has a wide variety of ramifications; these are a couple more obvious ones.

It's clear enough, then, why someone might object to the term pseudoscience being applied to their practice. Who likes to be falsely accused of misrepresentation?

This issue serves as another reminder of why Misplaced Pages's three pillars of NPOV, verifiability and NOR are important. Legitimate debate can exist as to whether something is really misprepresented as being scientific, even though some cases are more obvious than others. I still firmly believe that classifying something as a pseudoscience requires NPOV wording and a citation, no matter how obvious the classification may appear to be, and no matter how much the alleged pseudoscience reeks of bullshit. Remember, if it's that obvious or noteworthy, someone will have said so already.... thx, Jim Butler 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" means "something misrepresented as being scientific" (i.e., as being in compliance with the scientific method). This doesn't go far enough. Misrepresenting the scientific method isn't included here. Also, while "Science" might be a generic term, "scientific" is hardly generic. -- Newhoggy | Talk 01:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try but you fall into error and here's some reasons why. 1) Yes there are multiple defn's of science, but the one that's relevant here refers to that of the scientific method which boils down to ‘knowledge’ as opposed to ‘belief’ or ‘opinion’. 2) Many reiki believers try very hard to explain their beliefs in terms of the modern meaning of science, NOT the ancient meaning (art, practice). My hypothesis is that they try this for exactly the same reason that most religionists accept evolution - they don't like to be seen by the rest of society to be wrong. Let's face it, we are in the middle of an historic struggle, which began with the enlightenment, to see the world for what it is, not for what our myths, misconceptions, old wives tales and ancestors might have thought or hoped it was. 3) you are mistaken Jim to think that scientists will spend their time whacking each new pseudoscience on the head (as we know such beliefs crop up all the time) - see my Editing principles for pseudoscience articles. Therefore the fact that some authority has yet to make a pronouncement doesn't not preclude us as writers of an encyclopedia from using the word pseudoscience. Newhoggy I didn't understand your point but if it regards whether the misrepresentation is deliberate or not, then that is not the point. jim, whether people making the misrepresentation feel hurt that we point it out is not the point. Our duty is to the readers, not to the feelings of those who hold mistaken beliefs. Newhoggy, the misrepresentation is not OF the scientific method, it's OF reiki as meeting the definition of a science. I can't quite see what you're driving at re scientifc/science. Mccready 01:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: scientific/science, I was pointing out that even if Jim's view on the generic meaning of the word 'science' was adopted, Reiki would fail to be excluded from pseudoscience because more specific words like 'scientific' are used in the Reiki community. -- Newhoggy | Talk 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Newhoggy, yes, excellent point; I agree that misrepresenting the scientific method is an important aspect of PS. One sees it a great deal, e.g., from creationists who misrepresent the nature of disagreement and debate as part of science. It's pretty endemic, unfortunately. See "Teach the controversy". I imagine you're correct about Reiki; my point was about getting past the labels used and examining the substance of the assertions. TCM is a better example that I'm much more familar with. More on the general issue of misrepresentation, and the use of the PS label, below in my reply to Kevin. cheers, Jim Butler 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a common theme that many users over the past few months have been stressing that is seemingly going above your head, Kevin, is that a scientific point of view is exactly that: scientific, not neutral. It's great that you have such a firm belief in science and the scientific method, which has afterall come such a long way over the past 100 years or so. But you have to remember that science doesn't have an answer for everything yet, there are many things which are not even nearly close to fully explained by science because the theories and testing methods aren't comprehensive enough yet. But that doesn't mean that what we can't test doesn't exist, it just means that science isn't there yet. It is always important to recognise the limitations of any system that we use to evaluate our surroundings and our experience of the world. You have chosen to adopt "science" as your way of understanding the world. That's great, but you need to acknowledge the limitations of such a perspective, and you also need to acknowledge that it's not neutral, nor is it a comprehensive way of describing the world, nor is it appropriate to edit this encyclopedia to reflect your bias. It is quite a statement that you make when you say (implicitly - by adopting a scientific world view) that anything that can't be explained by science doesn't exist. This is the message that you put across to other people with your language and your editing style - whether that is your intention or not. You've rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way in the past (including me), but I have noticed a change in your editing style over the past month - which I certainly welcome. I can see that you're wanting to build some bridges here, but you are sending very strong mixed messages (your pseudoscience section on your userpage for example). This is just a piece of friendly advice to chew over and hopefully help you to get a better understanding of some of the "anti-mccready" hype that is going on - take it or leave it. Most of the criticisms seems justified, afterall you have quite a strong personality. Maybe you enjoy creating scandal and controversy, in which case you probably won't want to change too much anyhow.

Your pseudoscience section on your userpage has some spelling mistakes and is hypocritical in places. I'm willing to give some feedback on this if you're interested. Happy editing, hope you enjoy your long weekend. Piekarnia 06:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, this is in reply to your post above dated 01:51, 6 June 2006. The point I'm making is that the issue of misrepresentation is not always trivial. Courts of law and expert witnesses are sometimes needed to resolve allegations of misrepresentation. Not all skeptics, or all scientists, agree on the list of things that are pseudoscientific. Robert Todd Carroll calls acupuncture (TCM) theory pseudoscientific because it "confuse(s) metaphysical claims with empirical claims", but many would disagree that TCM theory is represented as being scientific. So who's "right" in that case? Take your pick, but on Misplaced Pages the solution is, AFAIK, simply to use NPOV language and source our claims.

I have quite a bit of sympathy with your staunch defense of rationality as opposed to superstition. I live in a country where Flying Spaghetti Monsterism isn't just a joke, but a pointed satirical commmentary on the thinking of millions of people and their attempts to control public education. This is also why I believe it's particularly important not to stoop to the level of the other side. (As the saying goes, "Never argue with a moron: first he'll drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience.") If we foresake rational analysis, what have we got? Yet some of the more impassioned skeptical types (whose brains partake of the same potential physiological quirks as their opponents, and of us all) do seem to fall into the mood of a religious war and "take no prisoners" among the heretics, rhetorically speaking.

I did read your essay. Your failure to distinguish between the propositions "the moon is made of blue cheese" and "acupuncture is more than a placebo" suggests to me that you've become so impassioned by the rationality-vs-belief struggle that you are overlooking fundamental distinctions, such as evidence-of-absence not being the same as absence-of-evidence. No one debates or researches whether the moon is made of blue cheese. Plenty of people do so with acupuncture. What can one say about people who lump the two in the same basket? Or who lump baraminology and trigger points in the same basket? They certainly seem uninfected by the germ of rational detachment that is the hallmark of good science.

You're intelligent enough to see that there exist shades of grey when it comes to the issue of misrepresentation. What are you going to do when you want to say "X is pseudoscience" and another editor disagrees and requests NPOV wording and a source? Engage in edit warring? Or defer to what Misplaced Pages says quite clearly? best regards, Jim Butler 09:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ChiroTalk

I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

anecdotal evidence

Is not an oxymoron. It may be circumstantial, and weak, but it is still evidence, in the classic sense of the term. It is often what initiates further research.MollyBloom 06:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please watch

Will you please watch amygdala. Torri 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Manheimer?

Hi Kevin, hope all is well with you. What was the deal with Manheimer?

cheers --Jim Butler 04:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

copy of email correspondence with him:

At 21/03/2006, you wrote:

       Dear Kevin, 
       Thank you for your interest in this project; however, responding to you has taken up time that my employer has paid for, and I can no longer commit time to deal with your enquiries, which are not trivial to respond to. I would be willing to provide the dataset to a researcher in a university healthcare research department who has experience of conducting, analysing and interpreting systematic reviews. If you wish to pursue your enquiries, then I regret that I cannot respond to you unless you collaborate with a recognised expert in the field. 
       Best wishes, 
       Eric Manheimer 

       Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:53 PM 
       To: Eric Manheimer 
       Subject: RE: acupunture 
       thanks eric 
       I'm now much better informed 
       I'd be very grateful if you could send me the dataset, I'd like to run it taking out the poor quality studies. 
       cheers 
       Kevin 

       From: Eric Manheimer 
       Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:05 AM 
       To: Kevin McCready 
       Subject: RE: acupunture 
       Greetings, 
       We included this article because it met our pre-specified eligibility criteria.  In systematic reviews, it is standard to set an a priori inclusion criteria and include all articles that meet it.  Incidentally this article did not use a standard pain measure and was not included in our primary analysis on pain.  This article had little if any effect on our overall conclusions.  Regards, Eric Manheimer 

Sent: Wed 3/1/2006 4:22 PM

       To: Eric Manheimer 
       Subject: RE: acupunture 
       hi Eric 
       I haven't heard back from you on this one. I'm keen at least to 
       understand your links to Cochrane. 
       Cheers 
       Kevin 

From: Eric Manheimer

       Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:05 AM 
       To: Kevin McCready 
       Subject: RE: acupunture 
       Greetings, 
       We included this article because it met our pre-specified eligibility criteria.  In systematic reviews, it is standard to set an a priori inclusion criteria and include all articles that meet it.  Incidentally this article did not use a standard pain measure and was not included in our primary analysis on pain.  This article had little if any effect on our overall conclusions.  Regards, Eric Manheimer

       ----------------- 
       I wrote 17 Feb 2006 
       ---------------- 
       thanks Eric 
       much appreciated 
       table 4 was hard to read (being split they way it was). do you have 
       an html link for it? 
       I couldn't work out, given you've included poor quality stuff like 
       (Zhang et al 2002) how you could conclude "Acupuncture effectively 
       relieves chronic low back pain." 
       Could Zhang's work be fairly described as properly randomised and 
       properly controlled? 
       I gained the impression from your website that you were part of the 
       Cochrane Collaboration. Could you tell me how? 
       thanks again 
       Kevin

Hmmmm, too bad he wouldn't share the dataset with you, although his conditions for sharing it are within accepted ethical boundaries for scientists. Thanks - Jim Butler 00:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The point is that if we can't examine the data, we can't take his word for it. And since this is THE study Ernst quotes, .... Mccready 12:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered trying to collaborate with university-affiliated researchers on this? I understand that since you believe this is an extraordinary claim, you believe it requires extraordinary evidence. Certainly the review meets the standards of WP:RS, as does Cochrane's meta-analysis (2006). Bandolier doesn't seem to have looked at acu for back pain since 1998. cheers, Jim Butler 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:DR

Hi Kevin, please don't revert without discussion as on acupressure; it's contrary to WP:DR. Happy to discuss substantively. thanks, Jim Butler 08:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There's been lots of discussion. I don't revert without discussion unless there is good reason, which, given Hugh's and Pauls reversion, exists in this case. As to Manheimmer, yes I've asked other academics - they don't want to get involved. Disgusting. Mccready 08:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And more discussion may yet be needed. As Warren noted below, there is never a good reason to revert without discussion unless it's simple vandalism. On acupressure, I see no edits from "Hugh" or "Paul", and believe you have confused this with another page.

Please read WP:DR carefully. Your edit-warring behavior is escalating and not helping reach consensus. The choice is yours whether to comply with WP policy and discuss as other editors are willing, or escalate and possibly force editors to pursue further mechanisms as described in WP:DR. Thanks, Jim Butler 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kev, I noticed recent changes to the Chiropractic article you have been making lately. Regarding the NACM, I have been seeking information regarding their legitimacy. Talk/RfC Do you have some new information that would qualify them as a legitmate "association"? You know, like the list of members, officers, something about elections, seminars, or official recognition. I have been trying to locate this information, but have been unsuccessful in this endeavour. If you have this information, please share it with us so we can evaluate it. Thanks Steth 11:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I see someone else has already been here today to request that you don't revert without discussion. You did the same thing on Bill Gates, today, and I've reverted your edit. The important thing here is that if you're going to use Popups to do reversion, you should only use it in cases of clear vandalism. What's occuring on this page is a content dispute, not vandalism, and as such the positions of interested editors needs to be worked out on the talk page, not simply reverted without explanation. Please participate in the process per what's required of us by Misplaced Pages:Consensus. Thanks. -/- Warren 16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Warren. My mistake. But don't you make the mistake of assuming someone else's lies are fact.Mccready 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your personal attack in regards to my revert of your revert(et al). I really appreciated being called a liar. I was reverting because your deletion did not have any justification in the summary(just a revert via pop-ups) I back checked edit summaries to make sure.

As a kindness I'm asking you to please not attack me personally, as it was really unkind, and include an edit summary with reverts not related to vandalism. Thanks. i kan reed 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You accused me of not explaining a revert. The explanation was there in the earlier edit summary. It is you who owe me an apology for the untrue accusation. Mccready 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because you explained a revert once doesn't mean that your argument forever trumps any response someone might make. If someone addresses your revert with a reason, which was the case here, then under WP:DR you need to respond. It's inappropriate to just revert w/o comment, which in effect says "your reasons are not worthy of any comment whatsoever". That doesn't move things forward and can appear hostile. i kan reed is right, and it's quite uncivil to say that his legimitate objections to improper WP:DR are "stupid lies". Thanks, Jim Butler 16:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, you're still using popups to revert good-faith edits and not giving reasons: First you added cat:pseudosci for acu w/ explanation that mention in article suffices for categorization. Then I removed it, arguing that cat should not endorse one POV over other arg's for acu being scientific. (Another editor then improperly used rollback, and I reverted, addressing his most recent objections asking for RCT's.) Then you just used popups to revert, without addressing my overall point that not all topics with elements of both pseudoscience and science should be in category:pseudoscience. Same dynamic on acupressure, too. I'm reverting both and look forward to your discussing, which is a basic foundational aspect of WP:DR. Have you read WP:CG and Misplaced Pages:Categorization_of_people, and do you disagree with their application of NPOV to categories? Thanks, Jim Butler 16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerns

Mccready, I'm concerned that you're causing unneccessary strife with some of your edits. I've not been watching much, but here is an example of a recent edit with a needlessly rude edit summary. Others have expressed concerns about excessive reverts. I remember trying to defend you from blocks a few months back, saying we needed to relax, assume good faith, and give you some time to learn more about how things get done here. For the record, I don't doubt your good faith- I think you're trying to make the encyclopedia more accurate, which is certainly a desirable goal. However I am doubting that you're going about it the right way. I just wanted to ask you again to be extra nice- especially to people you disagree with. If a situation were to come up where someone blocked you for incivility, I'd be far less inclined to speak in your defense now than I was previously. You'll do more good for the project if you manage to edit without pissing so many people off. Friday (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The histories for acupressure and acupuncture show a string of edits and reverts that violate WP:ES, and WP:DR. I have been more than happy to discuss these issues substantively, but Kevin has largely disregarded my attempts at conversation. Reverting without discussion is never appropriate except in cases of simple vandalism. I asked Kevin to stop above and he's only escalated. Jim Butler 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ruder then neccessary also. Really, if you don't change your approach, I'd be not at all surprised to you being blocked for repeated uncivility. Friday (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. HawkerTyphoon 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And please discuss any further reverts to Naturopathic medicine on that page's talk page, thank you. --apers0n 18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please could you say here why you refuse to discuss your recent controversial changes to the Naturopathic medicine article on that article's talk page (or anywhere else)? Thank you. --apers0n 16:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pls stop wikistalking me. There is nothing controversial about applying the lable pseudoscience when supported by sources. There are plenty of sources, so do your reading. Mccready 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of apers0n wikistalking. It is generally accepted WP policy to discuss edits on talk pages, per WP:DR, and this editor's attempts to engage discussion appear completely appropriate, unless there's something I've missed. In general, as noted before, popups aren't appropriate for reverting good-faith edits. There are legitimate objections to the use of category:pseudoscience, mentioned on Category Talk:Pseudoscience, in the above section on WP:DR here on your talk page, and on Talk:Acupuncture. The latter two were responses by me to an earlier series of edits you made, and you never responded to them. If you're not willing to discuss edits, then you probably shouldn't be making them, since civil dicussion is a foundational principle here. Kevin, you have a lot to offer to WP, and it would be much better for all if you'd engage the same dispute-resolution process that all editors are expected to. Best regards, Jim Butler 20:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture Jim. You know I hate repeating myself. anyone suggesting i haven't addressed the issue properly obvioulsy can't read. The issue has been extensively covered on PS talk. I was talking about travisthurston the wikistalker. he even an abusive email to me. the guy is a fanatical beleiver in altmed and also has the cheek to conclude, illogically, that I don't understand altmed. Mccready 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; there was no way to tell that you were referring to travisthurston above.

On use of the pseudoscience category: your saying "anyone suggesting i haven't addressed the issue properly obvioulsy can't read" is not civil or helpful. Friend Kevin, I both can read and have not seen you address my objections to the use of this category on certain pages, cf. WP's categorization guidelines at WP:CG. I haven't seen you post at Talk:Pseudoscience about it either, and it's not clear what specific discussion you're referring to there. Perhaps you could answer specifically? Thanks, Jim Butler 19:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not Travisthurston. Please give references for your sources on the talk page of the article before making edits such as this. --apers0n 06:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As requested many times on this page please do not use Popups to revert good-faith edits such as this to Alternative medicine. --apers0n 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit in Abdominal thrusts

I had changed the description of the process name from "previously known as the Heimlich Maneuver" to "also known as" and you have reverted it without any discussion that I can see. As I tried to note, the fact that one organization has decided to reference this process by the more general term does not change the fact that lots of people STILL know it as "Heimlich." That is not a name that has fallen out of use and so should be decsribed as "also known as". Please discuss.

For now I am setting it back to "also."

Pzavon 19:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Prescientific system

Why do you keep deleting all my hard work? -- Fyslee 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why he's doing that either, but I've been reverting, you can thank me later. :)--Hughgr 04:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed, and thanks very much! -- Fyslee 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason as i do on chiro. I'm not the only one with responsibility to see that good edits aren't deleted. Prescience label as dictionary should be discussed, not reverted. My chiro edits are also sensible and should be defended by the community, not just me. Work for the good of the project and your edits .... Mccready 16:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, McCready. You are "the only one with responsibility to see that good edits aren't deleted." Rejoice Hughgr and Fyslee. Rejoice everyone. Our Wikisaviour has finally arrived! Levine2112 17:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting good-faith edits without comment using popups

Kevin, given extensive negative editorial feedback on this conduct, do you really think that continuing it is appropriate? Thanks, Jim Butler 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You believers are a pathetic bunch. Chiros and acus.

Dear Acupuncture Jim the great believer in acupuncture and other hocus pocus and other defenders of your favorite altmed

I am getting sick and tired or reverting your removal of pseudoscience cat.

I am getting sick and tired of your accusations that I do not discuss.

The arguments have been covered ad nauseum if not by me then by my reference to them.

Allow me to plagiarise The pseudoscience cat applies to notable pseudoscientific subjects. Categories are used in Misplaced Pages to help readers search related subjects. When comparing pseudoscientific subjects, it will help to place notable pseudoscientific subjects together. Just about every part of acupunture is pseudoscientific. It is useful for the reader to read about it in terms of pseudoscientific elements. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for promotion. It is not a soapbox. Science comes first, and any dismissal of science in favor of pseudoscience is tantamount to evangelising. The research should focus on reviews, and on what reliable experts have said about the overall reasearch. OR is not necessary at all. If an expert states that the research shows acupunture to be pseudoscientific then it can go in the pseudoscience cat. This does not require any time to iron out. There are many sources stating the overall research shows acupunture is pseudoscientific. You yourself try to fudge it by calling it pre-science or some such other nonsense.

I've just read some of your stupidity on Butler's usertalk. The point is that people DIE from believing in altmed. A friend of mine was almost killed last year. Another friend, an intelligent person, did not quite have the science background to understand that a promised new scientific cure was complete and utter bullshit (but christ their pseudoscience jargon was good). He suffers from a life threatening disease but at least had the good sense to ask me for help. I suggested he ask the bastards trying to rip him off for some proof. And you have the stupidity to say altmed is harmless???? Mccready 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. First, I think your ad hominem arguments ("pathetic", "stupid") speak for themselves. Obviously I didn't say on my talk page that all alt-med was safe. "Alt-med" by definition means "outside conventional medicine", and that includes a huge range of things, so one should generalize with care. I did say that to the extent it doesn't hurt, people should be allowed great latitude to choose it. e.g., I said: "Governments, in this regard, imo should regulate that which does harm and educate about the rest".

Acupuncture is strong enough to withstand criticism. (I am too, even though it's entirely gratuitous in this case.) Valid criticism does everyone a favor, but dubious criticism like yours only serves to undermine your so-called "skeptical" position. "Shouting" isn't flattering, especially since you're attempting to claim the logical high ground.

Some critics do call acupuncture pseudoscientific to the extent that it relies Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) theory, which uses terms like "yin" and "yang" and "qi", but the point is that TCM theory still makes useful clinical predictions. Those predictions are testable, and are taken seriously enough to be tested by mainstream scholars, and some have found evidence to support acupuncture's use. Those facts are not consistent with the pseudoscience appellation, unless you want to go out on a limb and say Cochrane is pseudoscientific, in which case you're simply pushing an extreme minority POV.

The above-mentioned research is presented at acupuncture with impeccably verified sources, and is hardly consistent with the broad-brush use of category:pseudoscience. WP:CG and other guidelines and policies comment on the NPOV problems presented by using categories, e.g. here. I still haven't seen you address that specific issue. You've in effect just been saying "see earlier comments", and getting ruder each time you say it. Not helpful to anyone's cause.

Kevin, you need to chill out. I haven't intended to offend you, and am sorry if I have. You're an intelligent person, and so are many fellow editors here. We're your collaborators, and if you'd stick closer to NPOV we could continue to improve WP as we have with acupuncture, which is much better thanks to our mutual efforts, even if we have butted heads at times. Consider taking a page from User:Fyslee, who seems to share your worldview but is a paragon of civility and NPOV collaboration. I edit here because I like writing for WP and enjoy good, spirited debate. But the above, and your recent rampage of edits adding category:pseudoscience to a bunch of TCM pages (see Special:Contributions/Mccready) without addressing the specific concerns I've raised, are over the top. It's not fun or informative to others to go down this path. Not only have you taken the wrong fork in the road, you're barrelling down it at full tilt. Please step back and take a deep breath. thanks, Jim Butler 06:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dream on Jim. You haven't addressed your sneaky behaviour and are wrong on so many counts it's not funny. Here are a few. 1. Fyslee and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum. He's a chiro like you're an acu. Believers. 2. Cochrane has within it, at high level, acu believer. You know that. If they don't share data then they are deceptive quacks IMHO - what have they got to hide? 3. telling me i've taken the wrong fork ...??? saint acujim all knowing now are we? Bit of pot and kettle eh? Mccready 12:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sneaky behavior"? Let's look at this dubious assertion. The MedCab case you're referring to was brought by me and generally found in my favor, in part because the other party refused to cooperate. It had nothing to do with you, and was about Wikiquette process more than content. It didn't concern you, and there is no bad faith on my part for not involving you. Readers who check out that page will see for themselves what was going on, which was far more than your selection suggests. My response to the assertion that I edited without consensus is on that case's talk page.

So where is the evidence of hypocrisy and bad faith? There isn't any. However, your attacks above are over the top, and I feel you are transparently seeking to portray me in the worst possible light in order to gain a rhetorical advantage. Alert editors won't buy into this for a second. Your comments are far outside WP:CIV and are inappropriate.

On your assertions above: (1) Wrong. User:Fyslee is a PT of the scientific-skeptical bent, and an outspoken blogger about subjects he regards as quackery; read his user page. Perhaps you just assumed he was a chiro because he's so NPOV in his edits. Need I say more? 2. You're starting to sounding like a crank on Cochrane. Their reputation is sterling, and are professionally obliged to share data with other recognized researchers, not just anyone who contacts them. They're not obliged to share data with you. 3. It does seem like the wrong fork in the road when I express concerns about NPOV as raised in WP:NPOVT#Categorisation, and your response is to ignore them and stick the cat on a half-dozen more TCM pages.

Now, Kevin, you know that a majority of editors at chiropractic and a significant number at pseudoscience don't agree with your broad-brush use of category:pseudoscience. So consensus hardly exists for your side. If you want to advance your side, try making good arguments instead of edit-warring and personal attacks. Thanks, Jim Butler

Your continued repeated careless editing using popups is not only contravening Wiquette, it is destructive and could be interpreted as vandalism: see this edit, which (apart from giving your desired intention of adding the controversial categorisation of pseudoscience without adequate discussion) adds a superfluous