Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:37, 13 May 2008

Comment

People seem a little on edge. Consider letting it cool down. Jefffire (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That would not be a good idea. Listen, take a break for a few days to think things over. Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst have a new book out called "Trick or Treatment", which seems like it does a very good job of reviewing the evidence for a lot of alternative medicines. I think it might have some quite useful material in, judging from the reviews I've read. Jefffire (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you left messages on my talk page rather than emailing me unless the topic is strictly private. Jefffire (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A gentle approach is generally much more effective, working one little logically uncontestable change at a time. Consider Sport Chiropractic. Obviously extremely biased when first written. When I went through the sources one by one I found that CorticoSpinal had completely misrepresented one of them, neglecting to mention that it was highly critical of the increase in scope of practice. A direct quote from the article was minor change, but brought the article that little bit closer to neutrality. Likewise, the book "Opportunities in Chiropractic Careers" is clearly a piece of rubbish and not worth citing for anything. Cortico insisted that it be quoted as factually infallible (this takes be back to my days on the Creationism articles actually), attributing it correctly makes it clear to the reader the nature of the source. As you can see, these small steps look inconsequential, by they add up. The article is still highly biased, but more of these little steps will gradually bring it into line. Jefffire (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing is fine. Please message me on my talk page. Jefffire (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential misinterpretation

Hans Adler pointed out that we may have had a miscommunication. If that is so, please let me apologize for not being more clear and I will rephrase my posting at ANI. My initial post was simply meant to invite you to explain your opposition to the ban, as I had asked for clarification and Jim had quickly remove his inappropriate comment upon request. If you're unwilling to post to ANI, I would still appreciate it if you could just drop a line to my talk page to explain. Again, sorry if there was a misunderstanding. Vassyana (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It sincerely was not my intent to heckle you. I honestly wanted to know why you were objecting and why you thought it was too harsh. I have been known to change my mind on occasion when presented with contrary evidence or a compelling reason to so do. :) Vassyana (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a valuable contributor

You are a valuable contributor here at Misplaced Pages and I fear that if things continue down the current path, we might lose you in one or more topic areas. Try to "bite your tongue" more often, or tone things down just a tad, so we do not end up losing your input in these pseudoscience areas. Just a suggestion...--Filll (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

but not a hope, of me joining in, that is. I'm glad you're finding it fun and good luck with the Good Article! --Slp1 (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt it has been under dispute! I've already had a quick look but will examine further for interests sake at some point. But right now, William is calling! --Slp1 (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing legal opinions

As a general rule, when citing legal opinions it's best to cite the actual opinion rather than a summary of that opinion by one of the parties involved; any such summary is likely to be biased. So, "Wilk v. AMA, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990)" (the actual opinion) is better than "Wilk vs American Medical Association Summary" (a summary of the opinion by one of the parties). Eubulides (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a good template for citing judicial opinions. ", 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990)" generates the standard legal style for citing opinions in the U.S. federal circuits. How to cite judicial opinions gives info about citing judicial opinions in general. More generally, Introduction to Basic Legal Citation describes how to cite other legal documents. Eubulides (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the Cite court template could work. QuackGuru 02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried that a few weeks ago but it clearly was not ready for prime-time. Formatting it by hand is fine for now. Eubulides (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. QuackGuru 06:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

chiropractic

On the same topic - I too would like to see the article changing quicker - the range of views on this topic and the level of ignorance amongst all involved editors is high. Which allows many un-evidenced opinions to remain. Forming acceptable and properly weighted perspectives on the topic is very difficult in this environment. Personally I'd like to see everyone take a break and read 3 overarching descriptions of Chiro from each of the 2 or 3 main viewpoints and then return. But I think that scenario unlikely to occur. At present, solutions? - none. SmithBlue (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved yes would be good - what I'd like even more are experienced knowlegdable editors who are familar with the published material in the field from the medical, legal, chiro, public health and sociological fields. At present we all seem to be on a very steep learning curve. SmithBlue (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't find "sandbox 4". Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff

I just wanted to leave a message to let you know that I've noticed a serious improvement in your approach recently. You are being much more polite and productive. Please know that it has not gone unnoticed and I want to encourage you to continue down this path. If I might be of any help, please let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My approach now and before is exactly the same. Maybe you did not notice my productivity before. Got it? QuackGuru 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're the same person, unless the CIA lab used their perptual motion powered machine to create a clone using data stored in water memory and a miniature singularity to allow instant growth! *looks at you suspiciously* </lame humor> :) Seriously though, you seem to be much less aggressive in terms of tone and comments recently. You also seem to be getting along well on the chiro talk page. Those are a very good things and I just wanted to encourage you. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My tone and behaviour is the same and always has been good. Things at the chiropractic talk is not how you portray them to be. Things have reached an all time low. QuackGuru 17:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

has been restored. Night night. Viridae 12:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. QuackGuru 12:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please cease edit warring on Veterinary chiropractic. I would request that you let the article remain as the previous standing version and seek further input from third opinions, appeals for community input or perhaps the assistance of informal mediation. Further disruption will result in administrative intervention (via blocks, article protection, topic bans, etc, as appropriate). Thanks for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)