Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Back to Basics

PS, for everybody: Using Word as Photoshop, with a revenge, desperatingly expecting others to correct her own mistakes, while writing here above that she has plenty of time to lose, hmm, shall I continue?

An editor and a sysop writing anything but alternative medicine on the alternative medicine page is a troll. She prevents real job being done, she turns Wiki into a market where volunteers lose their time contributing and cops like she is lose everybody's time policing. Not to be continued, let alone reccommended. Just let her laugh all the time - for her own enjoyment (perhaps she needs it badly, judging from her venting alleged charms on the market place :O). Message for Theresa: get a life, dear! While John here is the only one doing the the real work, to his honor, just let us all HELP him or at THE VERY LEAST let him REST unharassed, and hey, alternative medicine, anyone ? :O) - irismeister 14:31, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Reverts without explanation

MNH: in the interests of article editing without reversion wars and working well with others of different viewpoint to yourself, it would greatly help if, should you feel a revert is the only possible sensible edit, to put a suitable explanation in the edit summary. And on the talk page. Thanks! - David Gerard 14:41, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

AM has been stable for quite a long time. DG in talk archive 6 declared his intentions to unilaterally vandalize AM. DG's changes go far beyond adding a stupid quote! -- John Gohde 19:53, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I certainly do not wish to vandalise an article. I do wish to reinsert points of view that you, with no doubt the best of intentions, have tried to remove from any mention in the article, using a style guide you wrote yourself as your justification. While it certainly explains your edits, it doesn't constitute authority as such in itself - David Gerard 20:10, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

AM has been stable for quite a long time. You are the person deliberately puting controversey back into AM. Remember that time is on my side. If anybody is too afraid to edit, that is their problem. AM has been stable for quite a long time. You are the person deliberately puting controversey back into AM. -- John Gohde 05:35, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

MNH that's the second time you reverted the article today. Again without an explanation. Why are you doing it? theresa knott 21:41, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, Theresugar, you become a real embarassment for the Wiki community - go troll your brand new shining Wikicop boots elsewhere, for we don't have much time for you today honey. Incidentally, please admit you are only a brutal WikiCop policewoman who only messes around here - or prove your good will by answering my EIGHTH request to remove the fight or flight, most stupid unexplained addition. Ya know, that disgraceful POV you cared to lay like a rotten egg, on top of the other AM article. Prove you can behave without messing around or attracting all attention to you, away from whatever we do. Prove your grown up charms - intellectually, if you can. Like answering eight due questions before caring to ask yourself yet another stupid question. Then go draw some Word jpegs elsewhere, willya, baby ? kiss kiss - irismeister 07:04, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

I assume that you can Read TK? And, please Theresa (as in pleading) don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter about you refraining from making personal attacks or harrassing me (4.2 Decree A. & B.) in response to my above comments. -- John Gohde 05:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

David, before you bother John any more, please note Theresa harasses him in editing, after a long history of conflicts, bannings and disruptions. She is becoming a pain for the Wiki community. I will reflect on the appropriate procedure and count on you for serious admonitions for her delirious behavior. Just watch her systematic, childish, and recently sexual harassment on the iridology pages and in these pages - last archives. There is a pattern of Theresa attacking and smearing the AM and I articles. This is hostile behavior, abuse of sysop powers, harassment at large and more than her previous libel. I mean business, David! Drop your aggressive insinuations, and contribute sensible content - or leave and let us work here. You disrupt our work and do nothing new. An area where you CAN do something is to police the policewomen. Do it! It will help. Try to be really helpful for once. Quies custodies ipsos custodes ? irismeister 17:21, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Let me remind you what you did to the iridology page: Here's what you found as an ersatz of explanation: "I would have more faith in your good intentions if they didn't involve posting your own name or your own website as an authority on the validity of iridology. - David Gerard 21:23, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)" And here is what vox clamantis in deserto were (what I preached in the desert for you), David: David, what you reverted on grounds of "self-promotion" was only good information. Please see the iridology talk page for details. We must not hunt POVs and delete them. We must only mark them as such, and explain them seriously. NPOV is a measure of central tendency in a wide field where all POVs are spread eagle. NPOV editing is not some innate or recessive trait of some uebermenschen - it's only a grand mean of all POVs expressed as such - and especially freely. Your insistance in automatic reversion did not help you see the fact: For two months, the iridology page was frozen on the good version. You reverted to the wrong one. Here we go again ! - irismeister 22:53, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

sexual harrasment? You like it! You know you do! You called me baby for months despite my asking you not to because i found it offensive. Now you going to go running to get "serious admonitions"? Don't be so bloody daft. You mention my name in every other post you make. You post rubbish on my talk page despite my not having spoken to you in weeks. You are obsessed with me, and you know it.You call me a police woman cause you fantasize about me in the uniform -especially the boots. It's no good crying to mama now, you shouldn't start things you won't finish. it's not my fault you can't handle me. Kiss kiss. theresa knott 18:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Theresa honey you are delirious. You are in the AM page, here. And in Wiki. And in public. If you want to show me something, or discuss my sexual preferences, you can still dream on about using Wiki for that purpose. You and me, baby, we can arrange a private meeting, you know. Just what does this have to do with our work here in AM ? Can't you tell the difference between our work (you don't know what it is) and your play (the only thing you do with your Word image editor? If you want, I'll be in London on June 5th, like Jim and David. Perhaps they can introduce you to me. In the mean time, please refrain from spilling your alleged charms, and save them for the real meeting. Kiss kiss :O) - irismeister 19:16, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Irismeister I'm not coming on to you. I'm ridiculing you. Taking the piss, laughing at you. Do you understand now? There is no point in asking for a private meeting, it'll never happen. I'd rather eat my mother in law's cooking. You won't come to London and you know it Waniek, just like you didn't take me to court when i pointed out your lies. You're all talk. Think about it, how are you going to insist you're not Waniek when we can see your face? Eh? You never thought of that did you? theresa knott 20:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

You only ridicule your hyperinflated self, honey. Wiki does not want to hear what baby baby did to the potty potty, wiki wiki. Not interesting. There is a special section where you can teach WikiCop habits, special English or drawing "Word jpegs". This is for medical articles, honey, a place for grown-ups. Now be the good girl we all know you are and save Wiki from the embarassment you cause. You are the fastest growing Wikipain and rapidly becoming a Wiki institutional trolling trademark. Today we have little time for you. As for my face, just face it dear, and bare with me - it's none of your business, as, I'm afraid, is editing per se. You belong to the Royal Wikipolicewomen Constabulary - and we'll see each other in London, only stupid as you are, you won't recognize me sugar. My name is Jipa, TK. And my face has long turned away from yours, a long time ago when I realized you were only the medical articles troll you are. If you are not stupid, prove it by removing the embarassing "fight for flight" explanation you found for iridology and added as a POV to the other AM article you destroyed - irismeister 07:17, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

Oohh diaper fetishism kinky! theresa knott 08:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Shutup dear, you are off topic again! Go do your homework! Cauz we work here, theresugar, and have no time whatsoever for your dirty DIVERTING imagination! Try answering my ten questions or at the very least only ONE single question related to the subject matter or go troll and police other pages ! TENTH SUCH REQUEST - are you deaf or only BADLY MANNERED ? You are disqualified HERE in Wiki, with no credibility and no serious pretention to come here again, except for trolling, as demonstrated above. Moving boxes to harass John does not a serious person make ! End of Theresa story :O) What a shame that a wonderful place like Wiki obliges serious contributors lose NINETY percent of their time policing the Wikicops ! What a shame ! - irismeister 11:43, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

"Standards Of Quality Guidelines"

These may be a matter of some controversy, in that MNH is treating them as absolute hard incontrovertible Wikipedia rules when it's actually a style guide suggestion list written entirely by MNH. So therefore informed only by his point of view, no opposing points of view. I hope, MNH, you can see how this might lead to it not being considered absolute hard incontrovertible Wikipedia rules by others, but rather as a long essay on your point of view. To this effect, I've added a relevant notice, which I certainly hope MNH would not silently remove while controversy remains. Because he's not like that - David Gerard 14:56, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

More lies? See the big fat notice above. The QSG's have been well advertised with many requests made for public comments. Nobody is stoping you from either commenting or joining the project. -- John Gohde 20:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they're your personal style guide, not policy. You've formed a personal project and claimed a list of articles, many existing, as your own; but that doesn't mean your style guide is hard policy and it doesn't mean your personal project owns the articles it claims. Wikipedia is, essentially, a single project. I hope you would have more wikilove than to call me a liar when I am acting in only the best of faith. I don't call you a liar. I would hope you wouldn't act in an antisocial manner. - David Gerard 20:10, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

More lies? Nevertheless, you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. I on the other hand made the project operational within 2 weeks. Keep on dreaming. Phase I has been offically completed. Phase II: the complaince audits will begin within a week or two, regardless of your above comments. The results of ours audits will be posted on the respective talk pages in order to expose the light of day to your nonsense. I know this, becuase I know what I am doing regardless of your above comments. To the next revert which wont be very far into the future. AM needs to recover from your vandalizing AM with your unnecessary additons of controversy. -- John Gohde 05:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)~

It wasn't "stable," [1] in that you've been substantially trimming content as per your personal style guide, Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality (though there's nothing at all wrong with that, as long as you realise that declaration of a Project doesn't automatically make it in any way binding upon others). What you mean is there was an absence of edits you didn't like. I don't see how this precludes future edits you don't like - could you please explain? Also, please point out in the history where you think this period of stability was. Thanks! Also, are you claiming that these "audits" will have more standing than just being your personal opinion as set out in your style guide? If so, I'd be very interested in details of how that works. Thanks! - David Gerard 10:36, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

MNH: I'm still waiting for details on this island of stability you say you see in the history. Thanks! - David Gerard 10:22, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Mr NH refactored the above comment by David claiming that David was making a personal attack. I disagree that the above is a personal attack so I restored it. theresa knott 15:36, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Before we lock horns for the next session, just give us a break David! I can't see anything relevant in what you do on this page, except for a pattern of disruption. Hang on buddy, leave John work in peace, and I mean business ! Drop your aggressive insinuations and contribute sensibly, if you can. If not, leave, cauz' you bring nothing new, or interesting here, related to the debate. Nothing AT ALL, capisci ? irismeister 17:24, 2004 May

I have no intention to "lock horns," as you put it. I fully intend to work with the finest Wikilove known to mankind. Yes, even for you, Dan. I certainly hope you would not look at work on this article in any other terms. As per the admonitions of that page: "try to actually understand what the other side has to say." I shall even try to understand you. "Respect other contributors." Do you feel respectful, Dan? - David Gerard 18:41, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not towards you David. You didn't earn it. I respect people who don't bully their way into sysophood and then waste other people's time. If you want to go beyond your declarations, go, and we'll see. Too many beautiful words and too many diversions, plus your history of iridology page reversals do not make you a good candidate for my list of Wiki people I respect. You are on Theresa's list, with other Wikicops. Who Wikiloves and Wikitolerates the Wikiwolf, is VERY cruel to the Wikilamb, the only one I respect for modesty, humble, day to day contribution to the accumulation of Wikiknowledge and the cause of truth. Wiki people are of course aware of the growing list of Wikicops doing nothing but traffic regulation and gesturing. We have an example of misplaced outburst of strip tease and alleged teasing, as if Wikicops like Theresa were intrinsically more attractive than, or in lieu of the very article they were supposed to "contribute" to. Alas, they aren't. As for your Wikilove, a love that's told with bad intent, beats all the hate you can invent :O) - irismeister 19:25, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

See! There you are mentioning my name again. You really are obsessed with me. I never offered striptease, you are letting you imagination get carried away waniek. theresa knott 20:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I never offered striptease

Good. For it would have been yet another embarassment, honey!

you imagination

That would have worked miracles for it would have supplanted the mess you are. For you have nothing to show, except for the potty potty, have you? Try this for a change (NINETH such request): REMOVE the "fight for flight" POV of yours on how iridology "works", for it only "works" for you this way. If you feel you have some time or competence left for the AM article, or only for the iridology article, try a simpler one: what is the mean, the median and the mode, as well as the analysis of variance for the processi dentati counts so far, as related to the iris? It will take some time to fool around the Google garbage ballot where you "find" your iridology explanations. Be happy for the great Wiki achievment you can boast with - removing me from editing what I know better, via your superiors in Wikicommittees. For "iridology" in Wiki will remain an article only you can take credit for :O) In the mean time, go police, troll and destroy other articles than medical, will ya ? - irismeister 07:30, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

"and animals"

Under ==Regulation==: "This can be a particular issue in the treatment of children and animals." Why "and animals"? - David Gerard 13:36, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Because animals can't make there own descitions about healthcare. The UK legal system (the one I'm fermilia with) also has stronger legisation for animals than human aduldts (only a qualified vet can treat animals). Geni 14:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a note to that effect (the legal system bit)? It confused me in an article ostensibly about human medicine - David Gerard 14:31, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

On MNH's personal style guide

Note to MNH: "personal style guide" isn't meant in any derogatory way. User:David Gerard contains mine, for example. Yours is a perfectly respectable personal ideal. I merely maintain that it is not and cannot be binding on others merely by declaration - David Gerard 16:17, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

A serious question to MNH

So you admit what you do here is not serious. Hmmm :° - irismeister 14:47, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

How on earth does asking you if your style guide for your Alternative Medicine project is just your personal style guide or something more constitute a "personal attack"? I really don't see it - David Gerard 16:35, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you David, while John does some real AM work unimpeded by your DIVERTING questions. We are here to improve CONTENT, not your imagination !!!!! If you can't see how on earth as you put it, or something more constitute a "personal attack"? go try your friend Theresa and tell her that the troll she is does PERSONALLY and REPEATEDLY TROLL, DESTROY, DIVERT ANY PAGE and ATTACK any EDITOR of the medical articles except for those who know nothing about the matter sub judice - and her own Wikicops for that matter. How's that for an answer, David, the selective feigned inintelligent editor and contributor ? And how about selective tunnel vision and your own style, my endlessly nice talking Wikilover and REGULATING Wikicop ? Are you now trying to supplant the tiring lady TK as yet another Wikicop ? What on earth have your own diverted visions and POVs to do with the subject of AM ??? FOCUS, EDITOR, FOCUS - we discuss CONTENT not CHARACTERS ! PUT A STICKER ON YOUR SCREEN BEFORE YOU "CONTRIBUTE" AGAIN HERE in this lovely way of yours ! - irismeister 11:57, 2004 May 19 (UTC)- irismeister 11:57, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

You know, this whole temper tantrum of yours is really juvenile and just plain stupid.

LOL now irismister is talking to Mr Natty Health thinking he is me. This just gets funnier and funnier. Oh unless MR NH is you lover? That would be cool!theresa knott 12:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Theresa dear you are again interfering like a fly into a honeypot just waiting there for you :O) But you only jump to conclusions like the Wikicop you are, spilling anything but honey in the process :O) Shut up! Go back your homework. There is that Word thing waiting for you, for yet another Word jpg :O) This is to say nothing about the world at large craving for yet anotherone of your Wikicop gems (I have the full official Theresa collection waiting for the right editor :O). If you want to really help with other "contributions" than for my own entertainment, as a premium for my time lost in Wiki policing the policewomen, then try answering my question for a change (11th such request) Requalify :O). Don't throw the towel yet! You are young and you can learn. In time, a difference will arise :O) Don't jump over the queue and insert your own agenda, again, sugar. Or do you just think of yourself as beyond those mortals, you know, decent non-Wikicop authors, to bother yourself with something else than with your tampon drawing "contributions" ? - irismeister 13:23, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

What tampon drawing contributions would that be then? If your going to attack me for my drawing skills you should pick a diagram that I made rather than one someone else did don't you think? Are are you so obsessed with me you think that i made every single diagram that has ever been put up on wikipedia. Also you should note that diagrams are png not jpg. Jpegs are fo photo's. theresa knott 13:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

If your going to attack me

You are attacking yourself, dear, with lack of focus. The same as you please yourself, by avoiding answering questions related to the article you "edit". This is fooling around, turning in circles, and indeed intellectual masturbation. By definition, you need not be helped for that since you help yourself so well, feigning to disregard you are not alone. This is also exhibitionism. Well, if it pleases you, by all means don't stop :O) irismeister 14:47, 2004 May 19 (UTC)~

Jpegs are fo photo's.
No, you' are :O) And you are politically incorrect! We, in Wiki, value the tampon png expert as much as we love the contributors to dozens of medical other articles on their lifetime experience. This is called freedom :O) We only resent little nasty trolls like the one you are :O) Now, as a proof, and for the 13th time, what do you intend to replace your "contribution" with, and what is the mean number of processi dentati in humans (downgrading the questions as per Wikilove rules :O) - irismeister 14:47, 2004 May 19 (UTC) ~

Question time for Theresa

(interpolation as a Wikicop tactic learned in long Wikibattles for truth :°)
I am willing, as above, and as a sign of good will, to downgrade my 13 questions for Theresa, at my 14th kind request for her to focus on what she edits , as per Wikilove rules. Probably vox clamantis in deserto anyway - for Wikicops only answer to Wikisuperintendents :O) - irismeister 14:47, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

End of Question time for Theresa

(continued)

The SQGs when finished are for the benefit of all editors. Any editor will be able to quote these guidelines by number in order to point out precisely what is wrong with the latest edit on any CAM article, without having to resort to personal attacks, such as yours. In CAM, there are more restrictive requirements than just NPOV, such as the controvsey notice above which your quote totally ignored. They are not my invention as your lies are trying to say. The SQG is a complication of direct quotes on what other editors have written on the subject.

I simply tested them out, once, on one stupid quote, which just so happens to have failed 6 out of the 12 guidelines or 50%. That fact alone, should tell you who exactly the trouble maker here is. It certainly is not me. You better get use to them, as you will be seeing them in the future on virtually all of my edit summaries and talk comments.

There is no personal style guide existing in this project.

Furthermore, the SQGs have no direct bearing upon the compliance audits. The CAs will be based on a master list of key questions that are derived from the SQGs. Again, the SQGs will allow editors to objectively talk about what is wrong with the latest edit without resorting to personal attacks.

DIVERSION - FOCUS DAVID, FOCUS and let us work for we don't have time for your DIVERSIONS, can you hear ? - irismeister 11:57, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I am tired of having to point out the totally obvious, to people like you, who are intent upon totally disrupting the normal stable editing process of Wikipedia. The days of the kooks bickering over endless nonsense is rapidly coming to an end. -- John Gohde 17:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I'll personally take care and see that happens, John, if it's the last thing I do here in Wiki - take my word for it :O) - irismeister 15:49, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

(question moved to [2] Sam [Spade] 00:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC))

Osteopathy is still being attacked as alternative medicine.

Osteopathy in it's orginal form is and always will be alt med (or quackery depending on where you draw the line between the two) DO's don't really practice osteopathy any more which is why they have the same status (pretty much) as MD's. In my country osteopaths pratices something far closer to the orginal form and as such are very defintly alt med. There are also a number of people who practice the orginal form of osteopathy who are definetly in the alt med catigopry. As such the point is meaningless.

from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine

The disambiguation is fine. One thing, though. In the United States, I think those that go to osteopathic schools get a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) degree and practice medicine without an M.D. degree. If so, Doctor of Medicine should be rephrased a bit (not all physicians in the United States have an M.D.). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ksheka 17:37, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

The point is far from meaningless as you have just attacked osteopathy as quackery even though osteopathy is conventional medicine. Speaks to the credibility of the attacker. -- John Gohde 10:45, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Kindly do not missrepsent what I say. I stated that in it's orginal form it is alt med or in the view of some poeple some people quackery. If you read on you will find that I defined Osteopathy both in it's orginal form and how it is praticed in the uk as alt med.No would you be kind enough to adress my orginal points?Geni 11:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)~

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Kindly review at length, and respond accordingly. Sam [Spade] 14:13, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Geni needs to stop making personal attacks. -- John Gohde 17:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I can't seem to remeber making any personal attcksGeni

Checked, Sam. The only trouble is that when sysops become trolls, Wikiconstruction is not a matter of avoiding them, but a matter of policing the Wikipolice. There is an old Roman adage, quies custodiet ipsos custodes - referring to the logical mess Wiki now becomes. Indeed, this is what happens when we are in a "milking mentality". By taking anything it can grab from articulate, competent, patient volunteer idealists, the likes of John, while banning them, taking their time, insulting them with theresa-branded stuff, we are not doing a service to the cause of quality in Wiki. We are only making it a sixth-grade nonsense somewhere down the sink, towards the general direction of the Web's red shift :O) And on a more general tone, putting ten cops, like a pack of wolves feigning to cry wolf for every new ingenious author, is little short of disgraceful. Therefore, I'm afraid Wikipolice is not the Wikisolution, but the Wikiproblem. We, in Wiki are not running about killing value. We are for increasing it!

So, Sam, I'm afraid we shouldn't hide ourselves behind rewiews. There is only one logical issue when Wikipolice is nasty - the issue from above :O) Appreciate your tone, though :O) - irismeister 14:55, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Emergency, Mayday, Wiki Wiki
Mayday! Dear Sam, the WikiRepublic is in danger! Wikipolice make their coup d'êtat! Please add your voice and come help John here wiki wiki. He is subject not only of personal attacks, this he is getting used to, but to a seven-months full blown campaign of character assasination - by SYSOPS. Look what they say here ! If you stand by your principles, man, it's time to act now. Thank you ! - Yours, - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

---

With regard to the sentence:

Since critics of alternative medicine are still attacking osteopathy as quackery the credibility of all the criticisms shown above should be seriously questioned.

I fail to see why the fact that some critics attack osteopathy damages any other criticisms levelled at other fields of alternative medicine. This inference is as illogical as dismissing all alternative medicine practices as meaningless because the benefits of (for example) homeopathy remain unproven. - MykReeve 21:14, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you in plain English, MykReeve: You see only what you want to see. I wrote the criticism of Conventional Medicine working to add hard data for three months. It was dismissed with one second gesture. Do you think I am some idiot to work and see the work treated like this ? CM is beyond criticism, as are Wikicops, as are Wiki admins, as are all self-inflated people messing around with nonsense questions like yours. AM is criticized by the same people who attack osteopathy, capisci ? Let me see: How shall I put it for you to grasp the concept ? Let's try: If you get a criticism of say, your dumbness, by me, a monkey, who criticizes Darwinism, you dismiss my criticism on grounds of my alleged incompetence, for I also rejected Darwin en bloc with your own dumbness. Need more logic ?

PS I assume you can read English in the above explanation. - irismeister 21:21, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

My comment has nothing to do with your "criticism of Conventional Medicine", I was referring to a specific sentence that is illogical for the reason that I give above - the fact that osteopathy is criticised by anyone has no implications for the validity of other criticisms of alternative medicine.

Really ? Explain yourself ! It does not hold water! - irismeister 21:58, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Since, as the article states, "osteopaths are fully-licensed physicians in all fifty states of the United States", I would be surprised if criticism of osteopathy were as widespread among critics of alternative medicine as you suggest here.

So what on Earth does this surprise of yours have in common with the subject of our alleged discussion ? Admitting, reductio ad absurdum, that criticism of osteopathy were less intense by those criticizing AM. Would that mean that AM critics were more legitimate par voie de conséquence. You must be into double standards and fuzzy logic. Sorry for French interpolations - it's Theresa who inspired me so much this evening :O) - irismeister 21:58, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I have no desire to discuss the other issues you mention, which are irrelevant to my point. - MykReeve 21:46, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Sans blague! Oh, now I do remeber you - you are the pathetic contributor of those lousy iris "photos" for illustrations. Now I see. Good for you to refrain your interest in AM, discussions or good logic then. I forgot we are, in your mindset at least, into downgrading credentials, quality and communication in this "talk" then :O) - irismeister 21:58, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Also, I believe your example to be an ad hominem argument. I would not dismiss any suggestion that anyone made on the assumption that they were incompetent... Each assertion should be considered on its own merits. Just because you got one thing wrong, that doesn't mean that you are incompetent, and I would be naive to assume so. - MykReeve 21:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, what has competence has to do with it? We have one and only one yardstick, which is the least common denominator of our mutual, common, cherished and indeed idolatrously revered incompetence. By this we judge the merit of competence. And by this same own merit you just plain square don't care some people work for three months and others for only one click ! Take John who's ill because of TK's innocent clicks after his own months of work here! This says a lot about your values, pal, too! I need to vomit. Excuse me - I will then have some real work to do. Use your yardstick and help Theresa build a better Wiki - for you two are the future of the project :O) - irismeister 21:58, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have offended you. I merely wished to debate the sentence in the section currently subject to an edit war. My personal belief is that criticism of alternative medicine is not weakened by the fact that some people continue to attack osteopathy - to me, it seems that it would also be an ad hominem argument to say that because someone criticises osteopathy, we must also dismiss any other arguments that they make. You disagree, as is your right... but I believe that you are wrong on this issue.

I do not believe that I have been "downgrading [your] credentials", or that my choosing not to comment on your "criticism of Conventional medicine" means that I was dismissing it. I believe that I have been civil to you throughout, and regret that you have not been able to extend the same courtesy. - MykReeve 22:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Answer already given. Stressed: This is not about me, this is about quality Wiki AM project and articles - irismeister 22:19, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Three reversions

You are playing the games of three, Geni ? Calling this an argument ? Com'on Geni, be serious, will you ? This is Wiki, not Theresa's playground. Besides it's you who did the third reversion :O) Tsk tsk ! - irismeister 22:19, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I've tried to be serius I will try and contine to do so. If you deal with my point on the talk page I will have no objections to that section. Untill then I'm going to keep removing it/editting it into a compramise version if I can think of one.Geni

Theresa, stop your petty edit wars - you are not impressing anyone anymore

WARNING - and second such request. I mean business! No go cry wolf and say I am a menace! Oh dear, what a pain you are, what a waste :O) - irismeister 21:33, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Theresa Knott

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against Theresa Knott for her consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against Theresa Knott. Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievances of your own. -- John Gohde 04:10, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

In an attempt at compromise, I have maintained TK's version of criticism and MNH's of support. I suggest that each user avoid editing the other section, as this has led to extreme POV in the past

In an attempt at compromise, I have maintained TK's version of criticism and MNH's of support. I suggest that each user avoid editing the other section, as this has led to extreme POV in the past.

Most honest people call it a revert. Sorry, to hear tha you don't! You are not remotely interested in getting rid of extreme POV. You just want to continue Tk's pollution. Do you think that I am stupid?

The good thing about reverts is that there are 24 hours in the day to get rid of the garbage. TK's version of criticism is not acceptable to the alternative position on health, period. It belongs in the trash can. We have reached agreement with WikiDoc's, but TK represents nobody, nor is her position in alignment with well established Wikipedian policy. TK's position is not acceptable, period. -- John Gohde 13:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

It's a shame that you think everyone is out to get you John. Calling Snowspinners attempt at compromise garbage, isn't very nice now is it? BTW I'm glad that you are feeling better. theresa knott 13:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The plural of anecdote still isn't data

How on Earth are newspaper testimonials encyclopaedic? - David Gerard 19:26, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

It is called attributing your assertions with a footnote. A real world physician is a better source of valid information than any stuffy grossly out of date academic in my opinion.

I told you what would happen once you open the door to quotes in AM. I can and might add a 1,000 valid qotes.

You have your stupid quote up front. Keep it! We, now have a even better quote for a knock-out blow you wont recover from. Followed by another great gem. I found them on my first hit in Google. Gee, I wonder what was in the second hit? -- John Gohde 19:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins who is a respected (if not by you) scientist and - the reason for the quote being of any significance - famous as a prominent sceptic, versus a newspaper quote you proudly proclaim you picked at random off Google. One of these things is not quite of comparable stature to the other. Again: how is this encyclopaedic? - David Gerard 20:52, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

???? To somebody who does not know what they are doing searching on Google may indeed appear random. But, if you know what you are doing you use advance search options to structure your search to find precisely what you are looking for on the first hit. I got precisely what I wanted on the first hit.

In short, I did not proclaim I found it at random. In fact, I proudly proclaimed I knew precisely what I was doing by finding it on my first hit. -- John Gohde 15:45, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

David, let him have his newspaper quotes. Never underestimate the intelligence of the readers. You see an article that presents two sides of a story.One side is supported by quotes from respected and famous scientists, The other is supported by quotes from the tabloids. What do you think most readers will think? If MNH wants to ruin the credibility of his own POV let him. We can always fix the article later.theresa knott 21:27, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I am sure MNH, being a person of good will, can explain how putting in a quote specifically picked as the first random return by Google increases the encyclopaedic quality of the article rather than constituting abuse of an article for point-scoring on the talk page, because I'm sure he's more interested in the quality. I look forward to being enlightened by his detailed explanation - David Gerard 21:47, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Russell Greenfield, says: "I tell them 'I'm one of you' and that we have the data - we have the studies, we're not making this up." My question to you is: What is your problem? Is your information 30 to 40 years out of date? -- John Gohde 07:27, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to make the paragraph in question read less like advocacy in the text surrounding the quotes. It read like an advertisement before - David Gerard 12:01, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Move references if you must, don't just delete them

MNH: I noticed you'd deleted six critical references from the article altogether [3] [4] [5], despite your edit summaries for each change saying "External links belong in the External Links section". As you obviously wouldn't just try to wipe out a point of view you don't like, this must have been an error. I've restored them for you.

I couldn't think of a good way to put these in the references at the end. If we can't sensibly list them in the references at the end of the article, we should leave them inline, as is the case with a tremendous number of other Wikipedia articles. Thanks! - David Gerard 12:01, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Slow people generally take a while to figure things out. I am really impressed at your speed, David. Keep up the good work. Maybe there is hope for you yet. Great job, David! -- John Gohde 16:13, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence headers

A newspaper report quoting two people is in fact "anecdotal evidence." I don't see how it could be described as anything else. Placing the words "Anecdotal evidence of criticism", apart from it being a phrase that doesn't actually make any sense, above the Dawkins quote as some sort of "tit-for-tat" (which, btw, shows insufficient wikilove on your part), is meaningless.

If it isn't, can you please explain how the phrase "Anecdotal evidence of criticism" means anything usefully.

I shall assume that it's a problem of definition. What definition are you using of "anecdotal evidence"? Mine is "evidence from anecdotes." What's yours? - David Gerard 09:07, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

ALargeElk: I prefer "====Anecdotal evidence in support of CAM====" to "====Some conventional doctors support CAM====" because to me it feels like using sentences, rather than descriptive phrases, in section headers gets didactic and is inappropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia article - David Gerard 16:18, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Other Issues

I'm curious about the six questions listed here:

1. What is the method of treatment utilized?
2. What are its therapeutic effects?
3. What medical conditions does it effectively treat?
4. What modes of action could plausibly account for these therapeutic effects?
5. What, if any, can possible forms of damage be a result of this treatment?
6. Is a more dangerous alternative treatment, or the safer version of complementary medicine, being used?

Where have these six questions come from - I don't see any footnotes. Not that I think they are a bad way to look at AM treatments, but they seem like original research.

Also, I'm struggling to understand what question 6 means at all. It seems to be asking whether the treatment is a replacement for conventional medicine (more dangerous) or additional to conventional medicine (safer) - is that right?--ALargeElk 09:49, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

In the absence of a response, I've removed the following:

When exploring the individual branches of alternative medicine six questions need to be answered. The answers to these question will reveal whether or not each branch of alternative medicine is mostly quackery or something that the public should seriously consider using.

1. What is the method of treatment utilized?
2. What are its therapeutic effects?
3. What medical conditions does it effectively treat?
4. What modes of action could plausibly account for these therapeutic effects?
5. What, if any, can possible forms of damage be a result of this treatment?
6. Is a more dangerous alternative treatment, or the safer version of complementary medicine, being used?

I'm happy to engage in any constructive dialogue as to how to make this encyclopaedic, or to reinstate it with appropriate references. --ALargeElk 10:55, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Until the server problem is fixed for real, this will be my last post to any talk page. I have have better things to do with my time. -- John Gohde 17:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course, his MNH summary said "Becuase you deleted the collective work of many different editors who do not show up ever day. Some people actually have a life!" Except that the list was put in by him. And rather than defend it, he posted the above. Therefore I can only assume he has no interest in discussing his changes - David Gerard 20:30, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

I developed numbers 1 - 4. Numbers 5 and 6 came from other people. I have a great deal of confidence that given enough time these editors will eventually add back this section. -- John Gohde 19:42, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your confirmation that this is indeed original research - it's nice to know that I was correct to remove it.--ALargeElk 08:39, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

AM still favors the support side. It will be like this for ever. Just thought that you might want to know. Your arguments still look second rate. Just my opinion, but I am right as usually. -- John Gohde 19:42, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Mr NH's latest edit summary

MNH has just made the following comment in the edit summary "(I found these quotes. I wrote the argument. I added them to the text. This is the original intro that I want for this argument.)"

John you don't seem to understand how this project works. You simply can't say "I want it like this". anyone can edit your text at anytime. understand that you feel you have ownership over the stuff you add to an article but your feelings are not important to this project (niether are mine or anyone elses) It's hard I know to see you work editted without restraint but you have to either accept it, or leave wikipedia for a different, non collaborative type of project. Having said that I have no objection to the edit you made to the article. Your intro looks fine to me. It's your edit summary that has me worried. theresa knott 14:44, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Weird commit messages

"AM still favors the support side. It will be like this for ever. Just thought that you might want to know. Your arguments still look second rate."

What is that supposed to meant? David.Monniaux 06:33, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me (though I always hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and would invite correction if I'm wrong) that it's an admission by MNH that this article is POV and he intends to keep it that way.--ALargeElk 08:39, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Pardon my broken English, but it seems to me that you guys are simply admitting that you are nothing but trolls trying to waste other people's time. -- John Gohde 15:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)~

Speaking from a personal POV I'm trying to create the best damn encylopedia the world has ever seen. MNH has stated on his talk page that he does not intend bothering with AM or iridology anymore.I think that is a wise decision. I suggest we take him at his word, respect his wishes, and stop asking him any more questions. Assuming he doesn't edit this page, ot the article page in the next few days, I suggest we archive the talk, start again and work to get the article as good as we possibly can so that we get some stability. theresa knott 16:10, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

My how the tolls manage to babble on so! TK this is not a newsgroup. Get a life! If I were to visit London, UK you would be the very last person on the planet that I would want to spend time with. -- John Gohde 16:58, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Having claimed he's not posting here any more and is not interested in mediation [6], MNH is continuing to post personal attacks and in fact maintains his own personal page thereof (and another). Should I put in a mediation request anyway? - David Gerard 17:55, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

That would be pointless IMO. I've already tried mediation. Our mediator called the process off. it is unlikely IMO that we would find another person willing to act as a mediator. No since MNH has already got as far as Arbitration before, I think asking the arbitration committee to reevalute MNHs behaviour to see if their previous ban reformed him in they way they had hoped. - theresa knott 18:19, 28 May 2004 (UTC)