User talk:Sharavanabhava

Please click here to leave me a new comment.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Re: User:Danaullman

I think my personal views on pseudoscience, time constraints, as well as having declined one of Ullman's previous unblock requests will disqualify me from adopting them. However, assuming they manage to get unblocked, there's a whole category of people over at Category:Wikipedians seeking to adopt in Adopt-a-user. east.718 at 04:41, December 29, 2007

QED

Is this about biophotonics? Anthon01 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. —Whig (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, I have rewatched "Photons: Corpuscles of Light", and I really cannot see anything that can be transfered from what he talks about and used to explain any method of action for homeopathy. It should be noted that within that lecture, water was only discussed in terms of an example of a reflective medium, and similar processes to what he talks about occurs in all materials (although less ordered in terms of angle of reflection, and with absorption of certain wavelengths to give colour). I shall watch the other lecture you note also, but please could you detail what it is you see in the lecture that is of use for this purpose? LinaMishima (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) I see why you linked to the youtube sample, a discussion of interference patterns. No wonder you found that exciting. It should be noted that transference of information requires the expenditure of energy - for information to be retained on both objects, the individual signal strengths of the information stored on each object must be reduced compared to the original. This can only be reduced to a certain level until it becomes so small that it cannot be determined as a separate component at all (see planck constant and the Uncertainty principle). Current understanding of quantum physics is such that at these levels, things stop being deterministic and become probabilistic, and this is unlikely to change any time soon, and the important thing to note is that at scales above those being considered at a quantum level, any underlying determinism is equivalent to the current understanding of probabilities in wave equations. In addition, fourier analysis makes it clear that the most important parts of a wave form are those components with the greatest amplitude. The probability of smallest components having a significant effect is so small as to be typically discarded. It should be noted that of course any such speculation is entirely based on a vague and undefined term of "energies", when indeed at an atomic level there is no such thing as a separate magical energy signature for a substance (vibrations are dependant on a given molecule's resonance frequencies, electron energy levels also dependant upon the protons in nuclei and other nearby electrons - these are the languages of molecular chemistry and physics, and no other long term means to store information remains). I could go on, but I shall finish with the greatest stumbling block of all - if homeopathic techniques do impart innformation onto the solvent in use, then the molecules or groups of molecules onto which information is imparted must have also naturally experienced similar events over their history to have acquired other trace information from their past environments. If homeopaths believe that remedies can be stored for periods of time, then these other sources of information must also remain. If there is any other means remaining that you would like to use to appropriate QED and other theories to explain homeopathy's method of action, please let me know. LinaMishima (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to watch and comment. While I could compose a detailed response, based on my own understandings, I do not think it would be constructive to do so here. I personally find Feynman enjoyable (as long as he doesn't go too heavily into the maths), and hope you found it worthwhile. I continue to believe that QED has tremendous importance to homeopathy consistent with the observed sinusoidal curve of different potencies, but it would not be useful to engage in synthesis here. —Whig (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

With all respect, Whig, I'd really suggest adding a response at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3 - this was started in order to avoid the awkward section at the other RfC in my name where there wasn't a way for you to defend yourself. Vanished User ^talk 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I am unable to assume good faith in this matter. Recommended reading: WP:Honesty. Please proceed as you wish. —Whig (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your chance to defend yourself. Why not ?--Filll (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my reply. —Whig (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would however like to make clear that I am not requesting the deletion of this RfC at this time as it might function as an RfC on the submitters. Though it is very interesting that you come to my talk page to discuss your concerns after filing an RfC instead of before. Usually it's the other way around. And you don't seem to want me to take any comments from this, just to go away or be banned. I have never been under probation and you should stop pretending that it's okay to say that or that it was okay to mark my block log incorrectly. —Whig (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Pls reply to my e-mail asap Wanderer57 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Arbcom case (maybe)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Vanished User ^talk 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Just wanted to say, hope you come on over and check it out! Blissfully far quieter than homeopathy; in fact at times we despair for having more than one or two active editors. best regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homoepathy article probation notification

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water Memory

I agree with you, infobox was not properly sourced. I have also removed links and categories related to pseudoscience, as they do not have proper references either. BE TA 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --BE TA 07:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Is this the way things go here? Anthon01 (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still around? Anthon01 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intermittently. Is there something you thought I should add or comment on right away? —Whig (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in contact with FT2 and have submitted my explanations to him. I am awaiting his reply. Anthon01 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting I post on AN, even though I mentioned it at the AN/I? What do I do about Filll who I feel is exaggerating my involvement all over the place?[1][2] Anthon01 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I defend myself against the stonewalling claim? Anthon01 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make a polite request to WP:AN and ask for diffs to justify your restriction, I think. That would be how I would proceed. —Whig (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The second link is here.[3] Ambiguous section titles. In any event its at the bottom of the page. Anthon01 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why waste your time in a talk page dispute with Filll? —Whig (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He keeps commenting everywhere I go, and his comments are inaccurate accusations. What do you suggest? You saying I am bothering him, but he is posting inaccurate accusations inflammatory messages in several different places. Anthon01 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest ignoring him, as he isn't an admin and cannot block you. —Whig (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten any response, and I am being advise to go edit somewhere else. Shoinfo says I am forum shopping. Anthon01 (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I said "feel free to forum shop", which is a little different to your misquoting [4]. FWIW, in case you haven't noticed, you have a bunch of admins on AN/I and elsewhere starting to ignore you because you don't seem to be taking their advice. You don't have to take it of course, but you run the risk of other admins then backing each other up - and ignoring you even more when people do pick on you, rather than you imagining it at the moment, Aesop wrote a fable about this (cue uncivil accusation...). Shot info (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very incivil by coming to my talk page to insult others. —Whig (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my misquote. So far one admin has imposed a ban without explanation. My request for clarity almost 3 days ago have remained unanswered. Others have ask me to let it go and move on. I prefer to get an answer to why I was banned. And were did I say anyone was picking on me? I did say I thought the ban was unfair. But I didn't say someone was picking on me. Anthon01 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthon, Shot info is not an admin, he can be safely ignored. —Whig (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am interested in listening to all POVs. So as long as he is engaging in a constructive manner I'm ok. Thanks for your help. Anthon01 (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you are always welcome on my talk page. ;-)Anthon01 (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever use email? If you sent me an email I will respond. Anthon01 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded, again. Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New ShortCut

On my editing break, I've created a shortcut that you might find useful. WP:PSCI. Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The correct standard"

[Heading added by Fyslee]

Thank you. Clearly, the correct standard to apply here is:

Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."

Does homeopathy have a substantial following? Yes.
Do some critics allege it to be pseudoscience? Yes. —Whig (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the wrong side of the line of demarcation in the four sections from the ArbCom. See here. The correct listing would be the first, and barring that the second. Of course the third applies in a sense, but it is far too lenient, since the first two apply even better:

Obvious pseudoscience
Generally considered pseudoscience

-- Fyslee / talk 06:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion vs. policy? Anthon01 (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee, I think we can exclude Obvious pseudoscience, and given the substantial criticism we can probably remove it from Alternative formulations. So the question is whether it is "Generally considered pseudoscience" or does it have a substantial following within the scientific community? Astrology is the ArbCom's example of something generally considered pseudoscience, and I don't know of a single scientist who holds astrology as anything other than mysticism. Homeopathy is controversial, it is alleged to be pseudoscience by some people, but it is also accepted and used as a regular part of many medical practices and there are serious scientists and doctors who believe it is valid and useful. Similar to Psychoanalysis. —Whig (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comparison to psychoanalysis, which is a mainstream practice which some criticize, but which is still mainstream and largely accepted. Homeopathy is an alternative practice that is definitely not considered mainstream and is criticized by a massive majority of the mainstream, not just by "some" people. The fact that is practiced by larger numbers in parts of Europe (and is going down very fast in England, both in numbers and governmental support) and India is only proof of its deceptive nature and how people can be fooled, or that they just hold on to old traditions. Your twisting of words and facts is disingenuous and disruptive. Stop it. -- Fyslee / talk 07:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is mainstream where I live, in California. It is becoming increasingly mainstream, in fact. It is mainstream in Europe, and in India. Again, it is unlike Astrology which is not accepted by any scientist. —Whig (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely not mainstream science in California. The attitudes of the gullible public are not included in the definition of "mainstream" science. -- Fyslee / talk 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is mainstream medicine here. You can deny it all you like, but that does not change the fact. Mainstream is determined by public acceptance, and it is accepted. —Whig (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] It is a parsing of policy. You are both trying to move the goalposts by reclassifying "obvious" or "generally considered pseudoscience" to the wrong category so as to avoid telling the truth according to good sources. That is disruptive and a violation of the article probation. Stop it. Even Jim Butler has now admitted the category does apply to homeopathy, IOW he has changed his mind when presented with abundant evidence. Here is where it happens: [5] & [6], because of this, & this, & this, & this, as well as this very clear warning to a user who is pushing the same arguments as yourselves right here. -- Fyslee / talk 07:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had conversations with Jim Butler in his talk, we don't agree. If you are alleging misconduct on my part please bring it to the attention of an admin. —Whig (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have at Whig's request. The article probation should have taught you something, and that is when to learn you are beaten and to stop. Continuing this line of argumentation is precisely the type of disruption that the article probation is intended to stop. -- Fyslee / talk 07:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait to hear from the admin you have contacted, but otherwise I will not regard your threats as anything but precisely what you accuse me of. —Whig (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said You are both trying to move the goalposts by reclassifying "obvious" or "generally considered pseudoscience" to the wrong category so as to avoid telling the truth according to good sources. Remember, there is no truth. I don't believe in censorship. You are not AGF. Reasonable people can disagree. Butler's POV is based on an article he discovered yesterday. I feel like I will be reported for going against the "truth." I suspect DeMatt will see it differently. How will you deal with that. I will now disengage. Anthon01 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You two aren't the only ones who have proposed precisely this line of reasoning, which is incorrect. I am not proposing that you are doing this out of ill will or that you are acting in bad faith. I AGF because I know that you really believe it, but it's still disruptive and by failing to align yourselves with the mainstream position and learn from the evidence your continued insistence becomes advocacy, which is forbidden. NPOV requires that we include the viewppoints of homeopaths and tell the whole story, but we should be aware that we are including nonsense that is properly sourced, and we should be careful to not believe it or incorporate it into our own belief systems. Also keep in mind something that doesn't jibe with my AGF, considering this statement of yours:

"You and I both know that in many ways, Homeopathy is unquestionably Pseudoscientific." [7]

While you are properly seeking to find good sources, your continued argumentation and supporting of other editors who do believe is unhelpful and further disruption. -- Fyslee / talk 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact I asked you if it is opinion or based on policy? As you have saidto me in the recent past it they could be different, that is you could believe somethin but NPOV requires that you approach it a certain way. If you are telling me that you are going to report me to the thought police ... You've got to be kidding! Anthon01 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said that even if you were a believer, you should subordinate those beliefs to the evidence and NPOV and edit from a mainstream POV (IOW factual position) by stopping any advocacy. Only then you can still include the nonsense of believers without advocating it. We are supposed to "write for the enemy", but we shouldn't believe it or advocate it. -- Fyslee / talk 07:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe you fundamentally misunderstand NPOV. We do not write from a single mainstream POV. We include all significant views and we describe them all neutrally. —Whig (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We basically agree that we include all significant POV and describe them without advocating them. It is as regards your personal POV that it is an advantage to adopt the mainstream POV to avoid advocating nonsense. -- Fyslee / talk 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal POV is based upon my own experiential knowledge. You would have me deny my senses to avoid "advocating nonsense"? We have all kinds of different POVs on Wikipedia, nobody is required to adopt some hypothetical "mainstream POV" here. —Whig (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should subordinate You meaning you or I or anyone else needs to subordinate their beliefs to NPOV. So I understand that. NPOV flows from RS. So far so good. You are certain that your interpretation and only yours is correct. I'm sorry but that scares me. That's where we part and that where consensus is suppose to help bridge that gap. Anthon01 (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. I'm just trying to provide some advice that has saved me from lots of problems here and I'm hoping you will learn from it. I don't expect you to change your beliefs, but suspend disbelief (for you that would mean temporarily be a skeptic) and attempt to be more objective while editing. That's all. It's pretty easy for me since I have been where you are and can see these issues from both sides. -- Fyslee / talk 08:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a skeptic. I told you that on your talk page. I take it all with a grain of salt. I can see both sides also. You are assuming you know me but you don't, and frankly you statement is a bit patronizing. I do suspend by beliefs. I am looking at RS and making judgements based upon that. When you get a chance I hope you'll take a look at the post I left on your talk page earlier today. Anthon01 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the warning template that Fyslee put at the top of your page? Anthon01 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I will remove it now. —Whig (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I placed one on my own as well. All places where there is discussion of homeopathy may need it. It is an aid and helpful to have it there. Removing it can be seen as a refusal to accept the advice in that notification. You need to AGF about that template. -- Fyslee / talk 08:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telling people they need to AGF is not how AGF works. —Whig (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but we don't behave this way in the US. Anthon01 (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't? —Whig (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean generally we don't. I don't have anyone coming to my front door and putting up signs without my knowledge. Anthon01 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some political races where that's happened, not to me personally but anyhow, I agree it's rude. —Whig (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had time to think about it, the template is placed at the top of article talk pages, but placed like ordinary comments on user talk pages. I guess that's what I should have done, just like has happened other places. Sorry for any offense. It was not intended. -- Fyslee / talk 04:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology, but I do not think the template is appropriate for user talk pages at all. Of course as I said, your own user page is yours to do with as you like. Thank you for your comment. —Whig (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From DU

Whig, I also brought a reply here to avoid Dana's page lighting up like a Christmas tree (although shot info has now reverted his previous edit). You should also read the article on confirmation bias, what we think we know to be true is often not the case. I'm sure you already know this well and that we are in no position to judge the validity of your personal experience.

Once the evidence starts arriving then people get swayed. There are plenty of instances, endosymbiosis and plate techtonics being prime examples, where skeptics have been won over by a convincing case. I agree with the Shot info that for scientists there is more contradictory evidence about homeopathy and that is not helping the field build a strong case. In fact, Occam's razor suggests that placebo is a very good explanation for the phenomena from a scientific perspective (many drug trials barely do better than placebo, homeopathy is not the only one with that problem) and I bet a lot of the interest in homeopathy from medicine is the hope that placebo can be tapped, along the lines of, if people believe it will work then it might.

So what is placebo? Presumably there is a real physiological basis for this (sorry for my scientific bias here) but I am willing to bet it does not have anything to do with water memory. Of course this is easy to test but I have not seen anything convincing (despite all those citations that people keep posting on the homeopathy talk page). Clearly I am much more skeptical than you, however, I am not proclaiming homeopathy a fraud unless they are charging outrageous prices for their remedies. And actually here is part of the problem, if the remedies are too cheap they might not be as effective, given an attitude of "you get what you pay for". I'm not being sarcastic here, it's an observation that we do not understand the basis for placebo. Anyway just my 2 cents trying to share my current perspective. David D. (Talk) 08:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo is inadequate to explain the effects which I had, which were profound and unique, and hard to describe. It would also be hard to measure the effect in a linear fashion of improvement. It is evidently quite common for people to have an almost reverse placebo effect from homeopathic medicines, in that their symptoms become worse before they become better. Homeopathic effects do not have to be tested on sick people anyhow, they can be proven on any healthy person who wants to take a remedy for awhile. —Whig (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand many of the arguments, I've read the homeopathy page for a while. There have been many personal experiences related, and maybe if I had had such an experience I too would be less skeptical, but I have not, yet. Do you think faith healing works, there are plenty who will say their experience was profound and unique. For that matter those that have seen UFO's will be equally adamant. This is the problem for homeopaths with respect to the more skeptical among us. Repeatable and robust, in a clinical setting, sets of data are required. As always to claim something incredible, (in this case more effective than placebo) does require exceptional sets of data. David D. (Talk) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a zetetic in these matters, where I have not had an experience I do not deny that others have had them. The universe is an interesting place. But I do not represent these things as scientific, and I would say that homeopathy has a scientific basis that makes sense to me. I have also conducted my own experiments which seem simple enough for anyone to repeat and demonstrate to oneself. The problem of course is that you are looking for statistical data and this is empirical science. I also believe that it is consistent with QED and in particular the observed sinusoidal effects curve of ascending potencies seems like the sinusoidal absorptions/reflections of photons through layers of water. However I am not a PhD physicist and would not represent my understanding as encyclopedic either. —Whig (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I think should be done. Assume good faith when reading the homeopathic literature. Consider it a reliable source and use it to present the homeopathic perspective, but do so neutrally. All of this talk about homeopathic journals not being reliable sources is not correct. They do not say what the truth is, they say what their view is. But the other sources which criticize the homeopaths don't get to say what the truth is either. Wikipedia does not take sides in these matters, we present all sides and let the sources speak. —Whig (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, why would someone reading about homeopathy not want to know the homeopaths perspective? David D. (Talk) 09:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and the reason I became involved in editing this article is that I wanted to learn that, and I couldn't do so from the Wikipedia article that existed. And I still can't. —Whig (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-critical

It was a joke at my own expense. You'll survive. Vanished User ^talk 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the summary. As for the edit - well, see the talk page. The source given isn't very good (in that it's rambling and frequently off-topic), so I think that's all we can say based on it. If there's other sources, of course we can say more. Vanished User ^talk 20:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Response re RDO on Dana's talk page

Hi Whig. I have responded to your comment on Dana's talk page. If you want to debate it with me, why not come over to my talk page or debate it here to save Dana from having to read it. We could then make Dana aware of our conclusions, if any. He can join in too of course - it's just getting cluttered over there! Thanks --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which comment in particular you are wanting to debate, and I'm not sure why we should be discussing Dana behind his back. If you want to discuss something with me that has nothing to do with Dana, then of course this is the talk page you should be coming to. I am not Dana's mentor and am not responsible for him, so if you have concerns of that nature you'd be better off talking to LaraLove. —Whig (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whig, I wasn't offering to talk about Dana behind his back, just clarify any confusion you had over the astrology reference and avoid cluttering Dana's page. Either you can't comprehend English or you are deliberately misinterpreting things. I now see that you are a very uncivil person, so I will no longer have any discussions with you. Goodbye. --DrEightyEight (talk) 08:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you be clarifying RDOlivaw's astrology reference? Let RDOlivaw come here and clarify him/herself. Nor have I been uncivil with you. —Whig (talk)

Whig, Dr88 has a clear MO: He feigns emotional rupture from the slightest remarks and calls people "uncivil" whether it exists or not. Then, any error that other people make are not just minor errors but evidence, according to him, of sheer ignorance. I don't live in that black and white world, and I hope that we all honor the world of rainbows. Dana Ullman ^Talk 03:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye to them "both", I guess. —Whig (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanished

What happened to Vanished? Anthon01 (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he has left Wikipedia. —Whig (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe he was involved in having me banned. Anthon01 (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved or not, he didn't ban you. East718 did. —Whig (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. See here. [8] Anthon01 (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not my concern. I'm sure whatever East718 did was in good faith. —Whig (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may get a kick out of this (kaneh bosem)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kabbalistic_tree_of_life_plus_hemp.png

Cheers, --TaylorOliphant (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but looks like original research. —Whig (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman

He filed a complaint against Adam then vanished? That doesn't make any sense to me. Why file a complaint against someone then disappear? And why isn't more standing up for Adam then, sounds like bull to me! --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Matthews filed the complaint. —Whig (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry got the wrong name but it still doesn't make sense to me.--CrohnieGal^Talk 21:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was a lot more to it than you see on-Wiki. Some evidence was blanked, and there were e-mail communications, all of which means that I hope you will put some confidence in the ArbCom, as they are hard working editors too, and they have been elected by the whole community. —Whig (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do but I have to say I am really concerned with how many editors, including administrators, who have left. Something needs to be done to give better balance IMO. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand your concern, I know there are some editors who have been insisting that if their POV is not the only presented POV, they will leave Wikipedia, and I wish them safe voyage. NPOV means that all significant POVs must be included with reliable sources that are verifiable, and presented neutrally so that readers are able to form their own opinions. —Whig (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Crohnie/Sandbox#Editors_who_recently_retired I have been trying to keep track of those who leave. I hope this explains. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me NPOV is that all sides get told just like you said. I am working the Crohn's disease article which of course I have a very strong POV about but I think I am working it for information so the average person understands what it is, I've even asked a few editors to check me to make sure I am improving and not using my POV. Not all of the editors that left because of their own POV they left because others were pushing their own and making it impossible to advance articles. Check out the Crohn's article and see what I am doing, and then give me an opinion. I am not afraid to have someone be honest with me so give it a try and see what I am doing. If you see something off, let me know please. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the editors you listed, my comment was more in regards to the so-called "expert rebellion" that some editors are engaging in. —Whig (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me? You do know that calling other editors trolls is uncivil right?

You do realize that calling me a troll [9] is highly uncivil and people have been in administrative trouble for such things.--Filll (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly suggest you might want to reconsider.--Filll (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your edits, which were trolling. —Whig (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I beg to differ. I want to reach an accommodation with you and an understanding of what NPOV is. I ask you to WP:AGF.--Filll (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading WP:NPOV. —Whig (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it several times. How do you explain or interpret:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. from WP:UNDUE.
When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. from WP:UNDUE
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. [10]
Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing. from WP:FRINGE.--Filll (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to explain or interpret? It seems self-explanatory. —Whig (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all WP:FRINGE is a content guideline. I am not disagreeing with it in saying this, but it is not equal to NPOV, and I have participated in changing guidelines which violated NPOV in the past. —Whig (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying WP:FRINGE has no bearing on homeopathy? Why is that? And what content guidelines did you change?--Filll (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not commented on WP:FRINGE except to note that it is not policy, it is a content guideline, and if guidelines violate NPOV they can be changed. At one time the manual of style content guideline for biographical entries allowed starting them with their manner of address, i.e., Pope Benedict XVI was begun "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI" in conformity to that guideline, which has since been changed. I have deleted your further comment as it begins with a personal attack claiming some agenda on my part. —Whig (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A third time you delete my attempt to engage you in a friendly manner as trolling? I will not try again. Oh well. You made your bed. And now you can lie in it. Sorry, but I will only try so hard and then I give up. --Filll (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can file another RfC against me. —Whig (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]