Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:06, 23 January 2007

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages!

Hello, and Welcome to the Misplaced Pages, TheDoctorIsIn! Thanks for removing the unnecessary pov from the Chiropractic article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Misplaced Pages experience:

• Take a look at the Misplaced Pages Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Misplaced Pages, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, TheDoctorIsIn, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 19:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic

You have reverted the science section in whole and not discussed your reasons on the talk page. I would be grateful if you would do so. I look forward to creating an encylopedic article. Mccready 07:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is little doubt that part of chiropractic's 'fame' is that some believe it works and others don't. Therefore, an important aspect of defining chiropractic is that it is controversial. Hence it is part of its definition within the introductory paragraph. What is your problem with that? It is a 'fact' that it is controversial. As you are a chiropractor you do not believe that it is controversial. As a scientist I believe that it is controversial. We encapsulate the two sides of the debate. By your continual removal of 'controversial' you are claiming that the modality is generally accepted when it isn't. This is not a neutral POV. I look forward to further discussions. Maustrauser 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic's fame is not founded in contraversy. Chiropractic's fame is founded in its continued success. That something so noninvasive and simple could be the answer to so many health problems that humankind have sought to cure with everything from drugs to leeches to ingesting chemicals is how chiropractic derived its fame. That the solution to much disease was founded in optimizing the body's nervous system so the body could heal itself is how chiropractic became famous. The contraversy is merely a side-effect of people clutching onto their old way of thinking about health and the body. TheDoctorIsIn 05:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mass Marketing

Was wondering what your thoughts are about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Mass_marketing

I am not sure why the part about chiropractic was added, or why it was added by a physical therapist. Any thoughts? Need changing? Thanks, Steth 23:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mean-spirited anti-chiropractic edits

Yes, there are others reverting anti-chiropractic POV edits back into NPOV articles. Levine2112 (see Chiropractic talk page)has been doing an excellent job. And yes, there are many who are anti-chiropractic on WP sprinkling the seeds of hate in many articles. I have already made several changes to articles like Chiropractic.

Much of the source of these mean-spirited attacks seems to come from a physical therapist, Fyslee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Fyslee

You can see where he has left his scent around WP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Fyslee

His tactics of recruiting editors and hiding any appearance of engaging in a conspiracy by using private emails are, I believe, deliberately meant to circumvent and exploit the NPOV rules of Misplaced Pages, severely damaging any semblance of a level playing field. Here is the post he sent out which verifies this:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/106337/thread/1140586598/last-1140668862/Skeptics+needed+on+Misplaced Pages

I am not sure why he is consumed by this extreme form of mean-spirited chiropractic hatred and dehumanization, but let's keep an eye on him (and them) and do our best to maintain a NPOV.

Steth 04:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Solving disagreement

Dear TheDoctorIsIn, Are we getting to a point where we cannot agree? If so, would you like to suggest a way forward? I will, as usual refrain from making edits, until this is resolved. It seems that every compromise I offer, you reject. I don't think that factual statements about chiro can be labelled POV. The only question is where they belong if at all in the article. What we want it to inform the reader about chiro, not delete, or unduly highlight, anything negative about chiro. Mccready 05:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Which edit specifically are you talking about? And what was the compromise that you offered? I offered a compromise for the topic sentence "controversy" debate and you rejected it. Is there something else you are referring to? TheDoctorIsIn 17:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer to the top section of the article. Please remind me of what compromise you suggested. Thanks Mccready 08:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I added "Chiropractic is controversial by some within the medical community" to the Introduction section to appease you. Now what was your compromise?

Also, you should see here for why an amazingly lucid argument why "controversial" should be left out of the topic sentence due to its inherent POV.

Also, I told you my credentials (I am a chiropractor). What are you credentials to edit the Chiropractic page? TheDoctorIsIn 18:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Doctor Let me get this straight. The two positions in your views were: 1. No mention of controversy in the article - your preferred position 2. Mention in the body of the article - your compromise position. Is this correct? Mccready 03:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision of Chiropractic article

Have you seen the revised changes going on? It obviously will need a lot of help from us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=759816

History: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chiropractic&action=history&limit=50&offset=20030319160337 Steth 03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! My error, it was from 2003, a small detail that I overlooked! They were so naive back then. Apologies Steth 03:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Chirotalk article

Thanks for alerting me to this. I think it would be one thing if another person started the article, but considering that Allen Botnick is responsible for the creation of an article that essentially about Allen Botnick, it reeks of - how you aptly termed it - shameless self-promotion... and what I call egotism. You should do a web search for "Allen Botnick". You'll see him plugging his website in the wierdest of places, trying to boost his PageRank. Levine2112 23:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Pretty obvious self-promotion. Hope it gets a speedy deletion.--Hughgr 00:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't be more of a help in general with editing. Fortunately my practice (and my family) isn't affording me the time I would like to put into this. Additionally, I find editing here so very frustrating at times and it can put me in a bad mood that is hard to slough off even after I have logged off. Anyhow, I like checking in time-to-time on my pet list of articles and I think you guys are doing tremendous work on the chiropractic article. Pat yourselves on the back... (but not too hard). TheDoctorIsIn 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice re: Chirotalk. Come again soon! Steth 11:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Chirotalk AfD

Abotnick has twice today tried to delete the AfD template from the Chirotalk page. He has also tried to change the outgoing link to his forum site to have very "spammy" link text - something that he has been warned about previously. I have reverted his edits twice thus far. Anything that you can recommend doing? How much longer until the article is in fact deleted? Levine2112 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about a little help on the Vertebral subluxation page? Check out the recent edit history and I think you'll see the problem. I guess it takes us all a while to understand that Misplaced Pages is a repository of verifiable information, not a collection of essays and opinions. Thanks! Levine2112 19:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I put my two-cents in. Hopefully it is worth something. I don't know about you, but I'm growing weary of editing here. TheDoctorIsIn 20:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Vigilance, my good Doctor. But if you are growing weary, no one would fault you for taking a break. Thanks for your help on this matter. Levine2112 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log ) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

List of articles related to scientific skepticism

Care to weigh in and votehere? Levine2112 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Whatever happened with your book? TheDoctorIsIn 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I couldn't resist;) --Dematt 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You are too much! Thanks! TheDoctorIsIn 05:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your email is not active

Hi TheDoctorisIn, I like your edits very much and I would like to send you an email. If you activate your email and I send a mail, your own email is hidden until you reply. So it is risk free. MaxPont 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I will think about it.. Thanks for the idea. TheDoctorIsIn 05:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's time to meet the puppets...

Check this out too. Levine2112 06:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted, I must say. I really am. TheDoctorIsIn 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder about QuackWatch

Hello, I'm ]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks! Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. GigiButterfly 06:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree here. TDII, before this gets too hostile, take a break (and have the proverbial cup o' tea). Let sleeping dogs lie. All will reveal itself in time. Levine2112 06:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tea?! I hope you are joking. I am at least going to start this inquiry. TheDoctorIsIn 06:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making false accusations against me.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. GigiButterfly 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing my user page. I do not give you permission to damage my reputation.

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' user pages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:User page for more information on user page etiquette. Thank you.GigiButterfly 06:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Cease fire

Both of you please refrain from *any* negative comments, starting right now.--I'clast 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)