Davidnortman

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Wikiacc (talk) 17:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Category

Added category physician to your userpage. --Nomen Nescio 03:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Your bulk reverts of science on homeopathy

This is a request for you to explain yourself. You have reverted in bulk, obliterating my edits and the edits of others. In particular I complain that you deliberately delete scientific material and accuse me of POV editing. Let me assure you I am very open to the idea that there may be good science in homeopathy. In fact the Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:393-399 which remains on the page AFTER my edits is an excellent summary for the time. Mccready 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: Assume Good Faith

Hi! I've beed watching the debate on Homeopathy. I would like to remind you that reverting in bulk is frowned upon, especially when the reversion[1] obliterates months of careful, consensus-based work. Please Assume good faith, and others will do the same. I note that you've been advocating your views on the Talk:Homeopathy, which is great! Keep it up. Try to build consensus for changes you think should be made to the article, and you'll be much more successful. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The Science section has evolved over a very prolonged exchange of very detailed arguments on the Talk page. Please look through the logs, and you will see I think that there has been a serious attempt to represent the consensus of scientific opinion, as represented in the best, most reputable, secondary sources. NPOV is not about presenting evidence for and against with equal weight, but about the consensus where this is verifiable from reputable sources. However the science section does acknowledge that patient reported outcomes support homeopathy, and does acknowledge that some individual trials show positive effects of homeopathy. This is a well researched, balanced, verifiable, well sourced section. As you should see also, I have been trying hard to avoid/remove anti homeopathy POV, we all have POV that we are blind to, but working together can help us to see this and avoid itGleng 10:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't mean to cut you off on the Lancet issue, I think you've raised fair points, and if you want to suggest a rewording I won't be obstructiveGleng 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles

Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Please provide specific examples of the lack of neutrality in Homeopathy, and specific "positive research" that has been omitted, so that it could be fixed. Just tagging it, and not explaining the particulars, doesn't help very much. Reinis^talk 08:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rewrite draft

Hello, I noticed that you've had some edits to the Homeopathy page and I just wanted to let you know that I've re-written the article with the help of numerous editors and it is a great improvement on the current article. I thought that you might want to contribute to the draft before it goes live. Please don't edit the draft directly, except for minor changes. Make proposed changes on the talk page of the draft so that we can all discuss them and add them if there is a consensus. The link to the draft can be found here: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)