Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:13, 1 August 2007

Archives: Archive 1

Moratorium

OMG! This is wearing me down. Great find on the GlycoScience.org ownership. I did a similar check on fisherinstitute.org and found its registrant (McCuiston) mentioned here http://www.rickross.com/reference/mannatech/mannatech34.html. By the way, how about we not respond to anymore of the sales pitch on the discussion page until a valid source is provided? The discussion is fruitless at this point. Jim Dunning | talk 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on all fronts. I'll reply when possible to Cosmochao's content/source related points, but, like you're saying, I don't think it helps any of us to explain our every action; even Cosmochao doesn't have to do that, and his POV is a driving force for him. I don't know how many different ways I can say that I have no vested interest in the topic except for the fact that accuracy is important to me, so thank you for your explanation of that on the Mannatech talk page. I replied re: glycoscience.org because it seemed like a legitimate attempt on Cosmochao's part to bring in a potentially valid source, and I wanted to show why it probably doesn't pass muster. Hopefully this, and your good detective work regarding fisherinstitute.org, will help Cosmochao discern among competing sources of varying quality. Antelan 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Basophil

Hi there, Most of the articles that link to the dab page are referring to the immune cell Basophil, and this is clearly the most common usage of the term (here at least). I counted maybe four articles that were referring to the Anterior pituitary type out of the ~thirty five that are linking to the dab page. I was planning to correctly point these four articles, and had already noted on Basophil granulocyte that "basophil" redirects there and where to find the other type. The other information on the redirect page can be incorporated into basophilic. Does this sound reasonable?--DO11.10 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sounds great. Thanks for your response. Antelan 23:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Spammer blocked

Thanks for reverting User:194.44.134.242 - I've imposed block as per previous warning. David Ruben 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously

For god's sake Antelan, if you'd just given it a few minutes and discussed things on the talk page, we could have worked this out. For one thing, the lead has to cover a few things, and you left one of them out- physical mediumship. Don't buy into the portrayal of me you've heard from others at the ArbCom. That isn't accurate. This whole thing comes out of the fact that I've been a thorn in their sides by being effective, not my editing behavior. If it's editing behavior, they'd be more worried about ScienceApologist and Minderbinder. You and I don't have to do this. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Read my comments about patience. Antelan 02:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to revert it back to your version, go ahead. I won't war with you. The message above is a peace offering. Are you going to take it or not? Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you didn't entirly leave out physical phenomena, but it needed more. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That is generous of you, but I'm not going to revert to my version. I don't WP:OWN the article, and I think that community input is warranted. If "for gods' sake Antelan" is how you want to introduce a peace offering, I'm "not inclined to acquiesce to your request." Martinphi, I think you are nice. I actually do. But I have concerns about the way you edit. So yes, I want to have peace with you, but it never should have come to this over my good-faith edit. Antelan 02:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there were "for god's sake" elements as well (: And your edits had real reasons behind them. I wish you'd have talked about your version before reverting. See my latest edits- I think they address all concerns. I don't know about the dictionary.com source, but if the skeptic's dictionary and the parapsychological association sources agree, I really think we have good enough sourcing for what's said there. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Waldorf education

Thanks for your comprehensive list of points to be dealt with in the Waldorf education article. These were well-taken and informed.

We have attempted to address all of your points - whether adequately or not, you may judge for yourself. Once again, thanks for helping with the process (and you are welcome to continue)! Hgilbert 14:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism in Parapsychology: merge debate

FYI: . I seem to recall you having some ideas for the Crit section. - LuckyLouie 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Antelan 23:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

the articles in question

Just so you know, I got the Controversy article fully protected bc it was turning into an edit war. Hopefully we can get some discussion going, but I feel like Martin is just going to wait out the protection (some of his deletions stand) and continue chopping away without discussion. I feel like this whole mess will go away once Martinphi gets the block he deserves for POV-pushing and sock/meatpuppetry. I may not agree with users such as Nealparr or others, but at least they are interested in discussion. VanTucky 23:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You may or may not even know the half of it. Martinphi has been a big part of what got admin User:ScienceApologist to resign from Misplaced Pages, and his edits have been a driving force pushing editors to request arbitration on the subject of the paranormal, as evidenced by his RfC. Antelan 23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky was edit warring, so I sandboxed it here. See what you think. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi, you recently said the same thing about me. I find it hard to believe that you're always in the right and everybody else is just edit-warring. Saying that someone is warring purely by themselves, without an opponent who is likewise warring with them, I might add, sounds pretty preposterous. Sorry bud. Antelan 23:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Really?

You said...

Ryan is right. Your logic is clear, and it will only help your argumentation to refrain from invective. Diffs are preserved forever, and magnanimity in the face of absurdity will give your actions more weight. Antelan 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is saying less is more absurdity? Because despite all the bogus accusations, that is all I am saying. All animosity to the side, do you really disagree that the article should present relevant information without the bulkiness? I'm not asking to exclude any criticisms though I am commonly accused of that for some reason I can't figure out. I don't understand how streamlined equals deletion. All the other sections are streamlined too. If you check the history of those articles, the consensus (just a few months ago) was against Martinphi's everything under the sun treatment of the topic. Where's the absurdity? --Nealparr 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think his argument makes sense, which is why I complimented VanTucky's logic. I'm not going to sit here and respond to your dissection of my every comment, especially when the absurdity is so obvious as it is in this case. However, for whatever it's worth, that is in no way a reference to your editing. Antelan 20:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for dropping by. about those Sploooshman AfdsDGG 22:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I noticed your internet connection looked shoddy, and I didn't want to let those strange allegations stand uncontested, so thanks for tolerating me on your talk page. Antelan 23:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nathans

Hi. I'm curious why you feel the seealso I added to Daniel Nathans is inappropriate. Would you feel better if I made Nathans be a dab page, with two entries, one for Daniel Nathans and the other for Nathan's Famous, instead of the redirect that it is currently? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I'll help you extend the list of "Nathans"-es on the dab, too. Antelan 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've got it going. How's that for a start? Antelan 03:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. I cleaned it up a bit. And, while we're at it, I'm thinking maybe nathan's should redirect to the new dab page as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm not that well-versed in dab's, can you tell me why you don't feel that brief descriptive detail (Nobel-prizewinning, fast-food, etc.) belongs? Thanks. Antelan 03:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The basic concept (per Mos:dab#Individual_entries is, The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. So, let's say I was looking for the place where I can buy hot dogs. I type "nathans" into a search box, and get to the dab page. I'm presented with two choices, one is described as an American microbiologist, the other as a restaurant chain. It should be instantly obvious that the hot dog place is the latter. Likewise, if I'm looking for the enzyme guy, it should be just as obvious that I want the first one. The extra text (Nobel-prizewinning, fast-food, etc) doesn't help me make that decision. If anything, it makes it harder since it gives me more text to read and sort through. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you for the thorough primer. Antelan 04:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon a good exampe of when putting in more details would be good for a dab page. In Gupta, under Revolutionaries, there are five people listed. If I had read something about "An Indian revolutionary named Gupta" and wanted to learn more about him, I wouldn't know which one to click on. Some additional information such as when they lived or which revolution they were involved in would help here. There's no hard and fast rule. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic

Response to your post on User talk:Nunh-huh.

Hi guys. OK - so we disagree. Perhaps we can work it, or at least move beyond the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality of this discussion.

I want to better understand what we disagree about. Here's my points, feel free to state your objection to each one.

1. Homeopaths created the term "allopath" and "allopathic" to slam their opponents.
2. "Allopathic" is a term used by many today, in a non-pejorative manner. Including US gov, AMA, AMSA, etc.
3. There are objections to this usage. There are claims that it is an incorrect usage.
4. Conventional medicine, known by some as "allopathic medicine", has a history of its own that includes slamming its opponents.
5. The allopathic and osteopathic branches of medicine (the big two of US conventional med) have a history of hostility towards one another.
6. Over time the once stark differences between these branches have blended.
7. Differences remain.
8. Very recently and with lots of politicking, important U. S. medical organization have taken a "separate, but equal" stance on the issue.

OK - so that's where I'm at. What part of this do you not agree with. It seems like maybe we agree on 1-4, and then we have some major rift around 5 and beyond. At what point am I losing you? Osteopathic!Freak 19:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Now you're using the term "allopath" in ways it's just not used in common parlance. You keep making highly contentious changes. I will be calling for an RfC. Antelan 23:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Between us

I can't tell you how much I appreciate your message. The WP:AGF is a good one, and I think we've all done a bit of that in recent weeks. For my part, I'll be the first one to admit that I do have a POV that is non-neutral. I'm learning what it means to neutralize it, and you are helping me do that.

Obviously, I'm an osteopathic medical student. I have my angle to push. But I really want to tell you that I'm not into propaganda, osteo or allo. And I do see that there's a lot of it out there. I want to report verifiable, well-sourced facts.

I sincerely don't know how to best handle the Allopathic question. Clearly, it is odd to refer to anything as allopathic medicine, and yet at the same time, it is definitely used, it definitely means something - something different than what Hahnemann was referring to in the 1830's.

For those of us within the osteopathic community, we likewise wonder what osteopathic means these days. Does it mean 'second-rate' as certain statistics might suggest? Does it mean 'M.D. + OMM'? There's no consensus on this issue even within the community. Yet the numbers say, most of us D.O.s work right next to M.D.s everyday, in the same hospitals, in the same departments, prescribing the same treatments for the same diseases.

My point is and has always been, the information needs to be presented, not denied or deleted, but not slanted towards unverifiable claims. Right now, the articles allopathic medicine, comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine and History of the relationship of allopathic and osteopathic medicine are all a complete mess. But none of that information was even on WP just a few weeks ago. It needs to be better organized and better written, but it needs to be there. That's why I've written this articles, to demonstrate, this is a valid topic, an interesting topic, and one that really is a big part of the History of medicine, allopathic and osteopathic in the US. OsteopathicFreak 00:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your kind words. We've both got our Userboxes up (you're osteo, I'm allo), which I like because it puts our biases out there for everyone to see. I'll keep pointing out neutrality issues when I see them, but I'll also get more involved in directly editing, so I'm counting on you to let me know when my edits aren't neutral, too. Also, out here at Hopkins there's a big osteopathic presence in the summer programs and in the physical medicine department - it never crossed my mind that the old osteo/allo rivalries were still in play. Antelan 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, Thanks for the barnstar which you awarded to me last month. I appreciate it very much, but did not notice it until this evening when I was doing some fine tuning on my user page. Thanks for the kind thought. --Kevin Murray 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine

I've reverted. Feel free to do it next time. If it continues I will protect. DGG (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal barnstar

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		This Barnstar is hereby awarded for your assistance in bringing the parapsychology article to Good Article status. Nealparr 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good is great! --Nealparr 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Medical School

You ask how many sources you have to quote to prove that they are not equivalent, and make the point that you would get sued for practicing OMM. This is dubious. I don't believe there's a case of an MD getting sued for practicing OMM. However, there are numerous cases of MDs who get trained in OMM and incorporate it into their practice. OsteopathicFreak 12:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Conveniently, you throw that caveat in there: "... MDs who get trained in OMM and incorporate it into their practice". Clearly, if you get trained in it, you can add it to your repertoire. Back to the point, though: osteopathic organizations have sued, for example, the New York State Board of Education, demanding the right to use the title "MD", and they have lost based on the rationale that "the state demonstrated a rational interest in maintaining the distinction between physicians whose education included substantial training in the manipulative theories and practices of osteopathy and those whose medical educations have not included such training." Likewise, in California, Maryland, and New Jersey, at a minimum, the degrees are not precisely equivalent due to this distinction, which hinges on OMM, as I correctly specified before. Cheers, Antelan 20:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I conflated two separate points. Point number one, "I think its dubious that an MD (trained or not) would get sued for practicing OMM. Point number two, MDs can and do get trained in OMM, that is to say, it is possible for an MD to have same training as a DO.

Am I projecting that this is sort of emotional here? Am I reading into your language? Can I do something so that this conversation is not adversarial? I feel like we are just quipping with each other and not even absorbing the intent of each others points.OsteopathicFreak 23:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that we see some aspects of this subject in such different ways that, many times, what seems painfully obvious and objective to one of us seems contentious to the other, and vice versa. When people disagree with what you (that's the impersonal 'you', not you specifically) consider obvious, it can seem like they're being willfully misleading, which can evoke a strong response. Frankly, I think that's reasonable, so long as it's rare. With regards to your points, I certainly agree with the second one as I've noted above. However, I think that a malpractice lawyer would have a field day if, say, an MD without OMM training caused a vertebral artery dissection while doing routine cervical manipulation. Practicing in an established field in which you have no training could easily be held to be malpractice. This is a long discussion about a comment I made on the talk page, but what is probably more relevant is the government document from Maryland that I cited above. Antelan 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

an MD without OMM training caused a vertebral artery dissection while doing routine cervical manipulation. I imagine the lawyer would have a field day with any DO who did this as well. My issue with this is that your are building your argument for some meaningful difference based on speculation of a hypothetical and, in my opinion, highly unlikely scenario. I agree with you, they are not equal. My point is that in the context of a brief introductory statement in an article about medical education in the US, the word equivalent is perfectly reasonable. Your arguments establish that the two degrees are not equal, I maintain however that they are equivalent. OsteopathicFreak 03:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, the hypothetical was something that I threw out on a talk page; the document from the state of Maryland better makes my point. Antelan 04:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

EVP rewrite

I want your input on whether or not you'd be willing to participate in a rewrite of the EVP article. It would work in the same way as the Parapsychology article in that I do the rewrite and make the needed changes and then invite everyone to the talk page of the article to provide input and make proposed changes. Wikidudeman 00:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your resilience in the face of absurdity is impressive. I'll stick things out with parapsychology, but the pro-paranormalists are indefatigable in finding new ways to WP:OWN articles, as evidenced by EVP. The ArbCom has only emboldened their efforts and reinforced their fallacious ideas of neutrality and veracity; consequently, I'm not able to stomach any more on that article, but I wish you well if you decide it's worth pursuing. Antelan 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If I rewrote the article, Would you be willing to make proposals for improvements once it's re-written on a draft page? Wikidudeman 00:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it too bad ArbCom is so misguided?