User talk:Heidimo:archive
|
|
Old stuff archive from heidimo's talk page
| Contents |
comments and suggestions
you can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- Thanks for the tip! heidimo 17:41, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi Heidimo. Please begin articles with the title in your article in bold - for example Organic ambient music is ...
Thanks, and keep contributing :) Dysprosia 00:47, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Okay, I was trying to figure out the difference between " and ' ' ! Got it now, thanks. heidimo 17:41, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think you may have cut out over half of New Age while you were editing. Please try to be more careful in the future? BF
- I apologize! Will be more careful. heidimo 17:33, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Copyright Violations
Heidimo - Album cover art is copyright the artist and/or band and/or record label. Please do not post album cover art here without express permission of the copyright holder. Such permission should be posted on the image's page. I'm listing the recet uploads you've made on Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements - UtherSRG
- Uther, thanks for the feedback. However, I was following the instructions posted under requested articles: music: albums that specifically requests that we post images of album cover art under fair use. So, who am I to believe? It is not my intention to break the rules in doing so, and I will stop uploading them now. heidimo 18:07, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Hrm... the albums specifically request that the cover art be posted? If you can add that to the image pages, that should suffice. Also go to Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements and let it be known there, since I've listed the albums there. - UtherSRG 18:10, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- You were correct. My apologies. I've undone what I done did. *grins* - UtherSRG 20:38, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Uther, no worries. I appreciate your intentions. I'm hardly an expert on the subject of image usage. heidimo 04:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Yeti disagreement
I would appreciate your input on talk:Yeti. Thanks! - UtherSRG 01:29, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting controversy. I cast my votes per your request. Seems like yeti might be best left to the imagination, eh? I live in bigfoot country, but I 've never seen one. Maybe I smelled one once, and don't care to repeat the experience. heidimo 04:59, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- If you did, it didn't get save. I'd appreciate a re-vote. (oooh... sorry.. shades of the 2000 election. *grins*) - UtherSRG 12:59, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Oh no! I must've left the chits hanging off my ballot....I voted again, and this time I think I saved it. heidimo 17:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Please leave the spelling of Kristin Hersh's name the way it is in Throwing Muses. I have all the Muses albums and her solo releases, and it is always Hersh, never Hersch. Crculver 17:07, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- You corrected some of the spellings of her name and not others the first time. I made them consistent, but in error. I am not, however, illiterate. I made a mistake. So did you. I will refrain from calling you names for having made a mistake, however. heidimo 18:49, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
Request for Comment
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Homegrown images - UtherSRG 16:32, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit to menstrual cup - good job. :) fabiform | talk 13:50, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You're welcome--thanks for noticing! heidimo 14:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Buddhism
If you take a look at the edit history of Buddhism you will see that I added Buddhist texts once, not long after I created it (after considerable time and effort I may add). So I don't know what you mean by "again". Perhaps you are confusing it with List of sutras, which is really not the same thing at all! It seems to me that Buddhist texts is pretty fundamental to any article on Buddhism. Perhaps you should be justifying it's removal... mahābāla 17:35, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Re: TCM articles
Well, unlike you, I'm not quite familiar with those subjects. I think you are much more qualified. I'll take a look at them after you write them. Cheers, Jiang 21:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate that. Perhaps you could take a look at San Jiao if you haven't. Thanks! heidimo 15:27, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Great Chinese Medicine article !
Thank you, Heidimo! Nice work you were doing there! (just linked to your parts from Wiki) - irismeister 17:42, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the feedback! heidimo 02:57, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Dear Heidimo, we should perhaps do something in concert about vandals mixing their own POV under a spurious NPOV aegis and massacrating perfectly legitimate, deep and caring research, as you did in Chinese Medicine.
Perhaps we should complain and reverse to your version systematically when people step in and start quibbling about "religious" matterns in a system that works continuously for what - six thousand years, twelve thousand years...
During that period we had shamanism and animism, Bon and Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, and who knows what else. And yet Chinese Medicine works as good as ever.
If Dr Kim Bong Han was stupid enough to describe collagen "bodies" under some points and Swift's scientists were busy eating poems written on bread, it does not mean that Chinese Medicine has to yield some evidence for our poor minds. It means that we, in Western Medicin,e are not subtle enough to understand the marvelous human being.
As we started cutting the hair in four like we did, my feeling is that conventional medicine will never integrate Chinese Medicine, which is simply too much for everybody in the West to understand fully. Considering all this, you did a very subtle and great article by any standard. Thank YOU for doing it so fine, knowledgeable and profound. - Yours, - irismeister 21:08, 2004 Mar 27 (UTC)
Thanks! and see my response on the tcm discussion page. heidimo 02:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I put a note for you on the TCM discussion page.
Cheers, Fire Star 20:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Fire Star, thanks for your comment and your work on the TCM page! heidimo 20:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
RK, Marshman, TCM edit wars
I am going to assume that it was either an accident or a reflection on your inexperience at Wikipedia, but you erased my message to RK yesterday on his Talk page. Since it was a message generally in your favor over the TCM debate, I assume you did not do it on purpose. But realize that your talk page is your business; RK's talk page is his business - Marshman
I see that the problem continues at Traditional Chinese Medicine. While I do not agree necessarly with how and where User:RK is making additions to the article, these are clearly not vandalism of the article and you simply cannot revert his changes as such. I am prepared to either lock the page or block you from making changes if you persist in that approach. I think the article is very good, but you have to consider the fact that TCM is not supportable by simply claiming it has been around for thousands of years. Indeed, if TCM cannot withstand critical discussion of its tenents, then I have to accept that it is in fact a religious belief and not a serious medical practice. If you have evidence to refute the claims being made by RK (which are widely held among the scientific commmunity) then you need to present them either in the article or the talk page - not by reverting the edits of others you disagree with. The article belongs to Wikipedia and not to you - Marshman 23:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Marshman, I did not erase any messages from RK's talk page, and would not even think of doing so unless perhaps it was a message of my own. Perhaps there was an edit conflict? RK's criticisms are quite welcome on the talk page, but he has told me in a previous discussion that he is not knowledgeable about Chinese medicine. I view his edits as vandalism, and as we have discussed on TCM: talk, there is some consensus to simply revert his edits on this particular subject. And what of his personal attacks? Are you in a position of authority on Wikipedia and conflicts? Your message makes it sound that you are in some sort of position here, but doesn't specify what, and the pages about you make no mention of it. heidimo 00:34, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I'm glad to hear it was accidental. I assumed so, since I was to some extent defending your position in the comment that got erased (view the page history to see that you did erase my note). You can view RK's edits as vandalism, but I think the introductory discussion on the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress page clearly indicates that Accuracy and POV disputes are not vandalism. I am an admin (sysop), so I can block vandals, lock pages, etc. but it would be wrong to regard that as "a position of authority". I entered the "fray" as an editor, and would ethically need to call on another sysop to exercise those powers. I repeat what I have said already: the TCM article is well written, it is not overly POV, it could use some skeptics input (I am a skeptic) for balance, but on the whole gives a very good lesson on just what TCM is while avoiding much of the "New Age" mumbo-jumbo that drives RK (and me) crazy. I was hoping I could convince RK that with just some of his additions in the proper places, the critic he was attempting to lay on the practice of TCM could be satisfied. I know it is frustrating to get something the way you like it, only to then have to defend it or argue about it on talk pages. But once you are rebuffed on a revert, it should be obvious that another approach will be required. It generally helps both parties for others to simply come in, try and sort out what the dispute is, and offer support for the best ideas. Hopefully I can do that without my own POV getting in the way. - Marshman 04:16, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you for stepping in; this offers a cooling down period, and a different perspective. I guess I was angry that I was being referred to as a vandal, when I was just summarizing a critical analysis of the many claims we hear about Qi in the west. What I would like Heidimo to understand is that in Wikipedia, all claims about the treatment of patients are subject to a critical analysis, and Wikipedia is duty-bound to report the consensus of such analyses. There is no need for anyone to feel defensive. After all, I have my own beliefs that are not accepted as factually true by the majority of doctors and scientists; I just don't feel the need for such external validation. For instance, I have a belief in God (specifically, a rationalist conception of God, in some ways similar to the God of the philosophers; see process theology.) However, as many Wikipedia articles make clear, there is no clear and agreed-upon proof that any god exists. Wikipedia articles on God, philosophy, atheism and agnosticism all contain very critical studies of whether or not one can say that God exists. However, as a contributor to Wikipedia I don't let this bother me. The NPOV format allows a critical analysis to exist without trampling on the feelings of others. RK 14:21, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
- That is how I saw the problem. I cannot say that I will agree with all or any of your suggested changes. The TCM article is well written and seems to make the point in several places that it is NOT about the New Age alternative medicine that you, and I will confess, I also think requires much critical analysis. Having pointed out that difference, I do not think that lets TCM off the hook; but the claims made there are far from outlandish in my reading so far. So the critical analyses needs to be toned down. For example, the fact that no one can measure Qi as an energy force in the body is a valid point only if it is claimed that Qi is a force or energy in the same sense that scientists understand the terms. I think the TCM article makes the point that this is not the case, and proponents of New Age that insist there actually is a measurable energy that only they can see and measure is their misinterpretation of TCM, not consistent with the article. This "two sides of TCM" as (mis)understood in the West is a valid topic that is getting coverage in the article as well. - Marshman 16:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Mediation
Do you have any preferences regarding who should mediate between you and RK? Please respond on my talk page or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Tuf-Kat 04:14, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
Requests for comments on RK
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against user:RK for his 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 user:RK. Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments.
At least two users must document and certify my efforts in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be removed. Please certify your concerns over vandalism done by RK. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:56, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- John, thanks for your coordinating efforts! I have made my contributions. heidimo 19:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Heidimo, You should go back to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK and sign your entry on the subject of users registering their wish to have RK's behaviour investigated. I'm not sure, but I think it may not count statistically otherwise. Regards, Fire Star 01:27, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Firestar, thanks for your suggestion. However, I don't understand what entry you're referring to. I went back to that page and it looks like I signed my entries. Perhaps it is someone else's entry and not my own? Please specify. Thanks. heidimo 19:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Greetings, the comment immediately after mine (I could tell it was from you by context) in the confirmation roster appeared, for some reason, to be an unsigned paragraph for a day or two. Then, immediately after I had posted my message to you, your signature appeared at the end of it. Perhaps some "magical thinking" on my part? Or perhaps my computer is haunted? We may never know...
Cheers, Fire Star 16:25, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- O) Heidimo, what you wrote about RK's vandalism was top - to the point and perfect. When you heal by harmony, harmony becomes a way of life - and natural defense. Keep up the excellent, refreshing attitude! - irismeister 17:42, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)
- Irismeister, thanks for your comment, and welcome back! heidimo 19:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine
Thank you for deciding to participate in the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine.
I have been scrabbling to get this project operational. I actually only thought of the idea of starting this Wikiproject a few days ago. And, I believe that I have got most of the hard work done behind me. There is no need to fine tune all of these project pages for spelling, typos, and grammar checks until we have decided that we have got something that we are not going to make major changes in.
From my experiences with Pascal programming on PC's, I prefer to write in outline style with all the details hidden on separate project pages. This writing style should keep the main project page clean, lean, and simple to understand. As a result, we should have quite a few project pages and corresponding talk pages by the time that this project is operational.
To simplify the communication process, I have established a special project announcement page at: Announcements for CAM
This is the only project page that you really need to keep on your watchlist.
Rather than correspond individually to each participant, from now on, I will simply update this one project announcement page. The respective talk page will be used for private announcements, such as requests for participating in VfDs, Quickpolls, and Comments. It is way too time consuming to try to communicate individually with everybody in this place. So, this concept should make it quite easy to notify a large block of people about important CAM issues. So, pass the word along to your friends. The more people we get to add our announcement page to their watchlist, the more effective this announcement page concept will become.
Speaking of the talk pages, conversing on our project talk pages are actually one level more removed from the general public than conversations are on article talk pages. So, conversing on these project talk pages are in some ways more private than the usual talk page.
The next step will be the fun part of designing our Wikiproject article templates. We will need a bunch of them.
The basic strategy for this Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine will be as follows.
We will give the science people what they want. Therefore, they will have nothing to attack or complain about. The number of Edit Wars on the CAM pages will thus decrease, the Quality of CAM articles will increase, and the CAM articles will become more stable and less controversial. We will be providing new article ideas for the regular editors to work on in the areas of Famous People in CAM and the History of CAM. The CAM editors will be presented with ideas for new articles in the area of the philosophy of CAM. Further, the public coming in to read articles on CAM will have an easy to use Alternative Menu Interface on each article to navigate them through the areas of CAM that they are interested in. All of the above, should actually make Jimbo Wales very happy (as in better quality articles, more stable articles, more articles, and better user satisfaction from easier navigation).
Thus, if RK and any of his ilk, should decide to continue with their baseless attacks we will be in a very strong position to make them look really bad in public. Their utility to Jimbo Wales will vaporize literally overnight. And, they will no longer be able to justify their actions to anybody. Thus, with little effort on our part the current state of constant edit wars in CAM should disappear within a very short time period.
I, myself, have written several 100% original articles on CAM, including one on the philosophy of CAM, which have been virtually ignored by editors like RK. None of these articles of mine have been attacked, presumably because they are already following most of our Standards of Quality. So, since I wrote these 3 articles myself we will start out by fixing up these articles. I wrote them, so nobody will complain if we change them.
I happen to run an accredited web site on Health. So, I am thinking in terms of using a similar system as that used by the HONcode people in Switzerland. That is, we will keep a database of all the CAM articles we have fixed up, with dates of reviews, a possible numerical score, and maybe comments. This would be tied into the CAM menu interface that we will place in each CAM article fixed up by this project.
Next, we will fix up the articles worked on by you and then those by irismeister. Finally, we will fix up the Alternative medicine article. By the end of this breaking-in process, we would have worked out all of the bugs in our Wikiproject and we will be ready to fix up all the other CAM articles written by other editors. By this time many other editors, would also have come across our templates advertising our Wikiproject and, thus, the number of participants in our project should grow dramatically.
So, I would expect that by the end of Summer the outcomes of our Wikiproject will be quite impressive, indeed. And, potentially a lot better than any other Wikiproject run by the science people.
For, the time being I would advise that you simply read through the various project pages and ask questions and make comments or suggestions on what we should change.
Remember, that the next announcement from me will be posted on our new Announcement project page. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- John, thanks for the wealth of information here. I really appreciate all your hard work so far, and I'm all in favor of raising the standard of CAM articles and ending the pointless flame and edit wars. I'm not sure I'm clear on every point, but I suspect a lot of it will get clearer in the doing. I'd already put the announcements page on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on that. Looking forward to it! heidimo 03:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
image
Funky! :) - UtherSRG 05:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Great Joycean choice, Heidimo - nice and clever! Not only it fits the balanced page but rejoices the artist in my own body! Bravo! - irismeister 09:34, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)
- It was very clever of you. I especially liked the added touch of the acupuncture needles!!!! I counted ten needles. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Yes, it's really me, and 13 needles. I took the photo as well. But, I hope you also enjoyed the reference to magical thinking and our pal RK. Thanks to him, I've been spending less time editing the Wikipedia and more time practicing magical thinking. With John's new project, though, I think that may change. heidimo 17:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Were you auditioning for Hellraiser VII? :-) No-One Jones 23:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm, I heard that one numerous times when I worked as an acupuncturist in a drug rehab facility. heidimo 03:18, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hah! Perhaps editing here has given you a prickly personality? The "needling" from our fellow Wikipedians over rationalism/religion shouldn't seem so bothersome after all of that...
Cheers, Fire Star 16:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Woah, scary picture, don't fall over!! :) (Oh and yes, Zuytdorp survivors living with the Aborigines is one idea people have had, but sadly there is no conclusive proof. The Aborigines could just as well have killed them.) Zuytdorp Survivor 23:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Personal attacks
- from the pump
For the record, where can I find the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks directed at one editor by another? Thanks. heidimo 18:08, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Heidi, the policy page Wikipedia:No personal attacks is what you're thinking of, but (if you look on its talk page) you'll see that there is disagreement concerning what constitutes an attack, how one should/can respond, and whether or not they're wrong. I suggest following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you feel someone is attacking you personally. I will also note that the Arbitration Committee's decisions, in my opinion, uphold the fact that personal attacks are wrong and (in extreme cases) worthy of severe punishment up to and including banning, though of course this is only my impression. Let me know if I can help you/advise you in any way. I also suggest contacting the Wikipedia:AMA if you would like someone to help you understand and use the dispute resolution process. Jwrosenzweig 18:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, J. I will read up on these pages. heidimo 18:25, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Qi
Dear H.,
If you have time, please have a look at the Qi and Talk:Qi pages. I'd like your (and other) opinions on a recent addition there.
Thanks! Fire Star 05:32, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Pathogen
Hi Heidimo—
Thanks for the talk page message. I'm not immediately sure what needs improving on pathogen. Perhaps most of it should be removed, as there is a very good list of infectious diseases.
JFW | T@lk 23:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hi Heidi. Yes, I saw your photo. I used to be scared of these things as a kid, but medical school and three months of surgery got me rid of that :-)
- I don't think pathogen needs a merge, just removing that list at the bottom and adding more general stuff (e.g. what is a virulence factor). I'll see if I can do something.
- At the moment, I'll have to respectfully decline to join the Alternative Medicine project. As you might have seen, I'm up to my ankles into Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine, and they've decided to vote on adminship for me (scary)...
- Notwithstanding, don't hesitate to ask me if things need checking for POV, mediating, etc.
JFW | T@lk 23:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
You are jumping the gun on the Infoboxes
I see that you have found my infobox template.
You are supposed to edit the template and replace all the 'XXX's with your classifications of the article under review.
The possible options, I believe, are shown below. You of course need to use the messy HTML/wiki coding. But, with a simple cut and paste operation it should not be that hard to do.
Please, reply if you have any questions. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 18:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- John, you are jumping the gun on checking my work. I had no intention of leaving the X's in. Please check again. heidimo 18:52, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
I am online today writing my newsletter, so I decided to add some custom messages. The next thing you know, I was doing a few interesting infoboxes.
First of all, your choices should be hyperlinked. That way the public can figure out what you are talking about by clicking on the hyperlink. The possible options are listed just below where you got the template from. The actual coding is rather long, but you can cut and paste them. I have put all my options in a text file to make them easier to work with. If you edit that entire infobox project page, you can copy and paste that entire section to a textfile in one operation.
Also, I am saving a few basic selections in my sandbox. That way, I only have to change one or two items rather than editing the entire infobox each time. All the articles on stuff remotely connected to TCM would basically look the same.
I put N/A in TCM because it covers a broad area, just like alternative medicine does.
I would classify the article under question as pseudoscience. That would be my automatic choice for most everything. If you can locate some research that shows that it works, then I would go for protoscience. So, acupuncture would be a protoscience because I have reviewed a number of research studies that has shown it to work, for whatever reason. Stuff like faith healing, I would put as supernatural because it is a religious practice.
Remember that these classifications are there *only* to make the science people happy. Anybody seriously interested in alternative medicine is going to ignore them anyway. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 19:15, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
WikiDoc
Hi Heidimo, as you have proably aready figure out by the now, the editor causing the problems in allergies JFdeWolff aka JFW is an MD (endocrinology, hematology) who started the informal WikiDoc project. One of those MDs from WikiDoc was posting like a high school student in Alternative medicine on Sunday. Yet another doctor from WikiDoc was working with irismaster on the orignal conventional medicine article. And, yet a third MD from WikiDoc actually made a few rational comments in talk:alternative medicine a while back.
Alex.tan, also in WikiDoc, is a 27 year old medical doctor (M.B.,B.S. (Sydney)) (general clinical topics).
WikiDoc is caring out a crusade to clean up the medical articles [Some articles are completely unscientific (an "evidence-free zone")]. So, expect a lot more problems in the future. The funny thing about this, is that they have yet to officially start a Wikiproject. Hence, they are cleaning up as a group without official authority to do so, other than the fact that any high school kid is allowed to edit articles.
So, Heidimo remember that most MD's don't have the time to engage in edit wars (especially in middle of the work week). And, they are a diverse group. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- John, thanks for the info about the wikidoc project. For the record, it was Alex.tan who wholesale removed everything I had contributed to the article, but left in other unscientific stuff. I have found JFW pleasant to work with and helpful regarding this matter. heidimo 16:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- Alex.tan, appears to have added an Alternative views section. So, to get our way in the future, all you have to do is politely point out the error of their ways and add an Alternative views section to these types of articles. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health
- JFW I think was the one who titled that section, though I think the hygeine hypothesis is an alternative viewpoint as well. JFW has defended the need to keep the viewpoints in. Alex has edited it a bit. All and all, I think the resolution is satisfactory to all. heidimo 16:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Wellness
You should check out the bottom of the Wellness article. Our set of infoboxes and custom messages are now complete, I believe. This latest infobox is very easy to use as all you have to do is copy {{CamBottom}} to the bottom of the article. The disadvantage is that it is not as big or prominent. A few people have already noticed my recent addition. Yes, the WikiDoc people are definitely aware of our CAM project.
Speaking of wellness, articles like this one should be 100% about CAM, but are not. Why any science person would want to interject Westrn science into articles about clearly CAM terms is totally beyond me. I will be adding Phase V to our project as our formal step to clean up these CAM related articles. In wellness, the science viewpoint should be presented in an alternative view section. And, JFW has already expressed his lack of interest in fighting over wellness. Hopefully, we wont receive much resistance while cleaning up wellness. -- [[User:Mr-Nat
You've got mail!
Hold on a bit. I will shortly give you more detailed advice. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:36, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- Holding on until further instructions. heidimo 04:52, 1 May 2004 (UTC) You're up late, John! heidimo 04:55, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
TCM is a lot like alternative medicine and should be modeled accordingly after alternative medicine. The primary problem with the present TCM article as I see it is that the article is simply too big. Using the present table of contents I would physically breakup the TCM article as follows.
Keep in the Main TCM article, the following.
- Table of contents
- 1 Uses
- 2 TCM theory
- 3 TCM diagnostics
- 3.1 Diagnostic techniques
- 4 TCM techniques
- 6 TCM and Science
- 6.1 Does it work?
- 6.2 How does it work?
- 7 Western Medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
These sections should go into at least two separate articles.
- 2.1 Yin Yang
- 2.2 Qi
- 2.3 Five element theory
- 2.4 Zang-Fu theory
- 2.5 The TCM model of the body
- 5 History of Traditional Chinese medicine
TCM covers a very broad area just like alternative medicine does. So, I would advise referring to TCM only in general terms in the main TCM article because TCM covers a very broad area. You want to force the critics to criticize TCM in general rather than on specific parts of it.
After removing the above, TCM may still be too big. I cannot really tell until I see the finished product.
But, critics would most likely be attacking the philosophical parts of the present TCM article. So, it would be best to remove them from the main article.
You should be thinking in terms of hyperlink documents. Everything does not have to be in one huge page. Simply refer to them in a link, like I did on the main project page of our project. I cover ever thing in a half dozen different pages rather than in one huge page. The content is still there. The topics are just covered in detail on separate pages. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 04:59, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, these sound like good ideas. It is a really bloated beast. I can't bear to read it as it is, though. That's why I wanted to revert it. I'm not in the mood to engage in another revert war, so I'll probably not touch it for now. heidimo 05:04, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well somebody needs to thin it down. Then we can attack it section by section. It would be best to put the controversial stuff in a separate article. I will be calling it a night, now. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:07, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
- Of course. What I am suggesting is reverting to pre-vandalism and then thinning it down. Right now it's the version that incorporated lots of RK-speak, in an effort by others to accomodate him. Nighty-night. heidimo 05:11, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
You've got mail!
I have detected another bug. This time it is in the NCCAM classification system. You apparently have been aware of this problem for some time. So, I have corrected most of the infoboxes that are components of TCM. All components of TCM should now use this NCCAM classification: Component of Traditional Chinese medicine.
I also came across a summary of the proof of the effectiveness of acupuncture and added it as a special reference section. We should do a search on the NCCAM web site for proof of effectiveness for everything as we can find the time to do so. If the NCCAM summary reads favorably we can then justify classifying that branch of alternative medicine as a protoscience. -- John Gohde 15:29, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds good! heidimo 04:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- You need to review Traditional Chinese medicine and add any other articles that are part of TCM. This section is the total of the series of articles on TCM. If it gets too big, we can create a new article for it. But, before we go that far, why don't you locate everything that has to do with TCM and put it in this one section. -- John Gohde 18:14, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
I listed everything I could think of, including several that haven't been written but probably ought to be. heidimo 04:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Medical acupuncture
Greetings H., User:Acampbell70 has left a(n undated) note on the Talk:Medical acupuncture page which may be of interest to you if you haven't seen it already. I'm glad he's taken an interest in the article (which was apparently pirated from his website without his knowledge, originally). Cheers, Fire Star 20:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thanks
Thanks for your welcome to the CAM. Hope I can be of help. DryGrain 15:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Phase I has been completed!
Just to let you know, Phase I of our project has been completed. See Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine#Future Proposed Goals & Tasks. I am getting burnt out from working on this project, so I am planning on slowing down. I need to develop a few things before the compliance audits in Phase II can begin. I doubt that we will ever be auditing more than a handful of articles, but it could get to a dozen. In the mean time, there is work still to be done under our Open Tasks. And, you might try working some on Phase III. I wonder what happened to our other 3 participants? They have been mighty quite. -- John Gohde 21:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Intuition
I have given this article a disputed warning because, to me, what you wrote sounds very untrue to me. For example, I develop intuition in chess by playing and observing (empiry), not the other way round. Andries 19:49, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't write anything, I simply reverted to the previous version. I still find the previous version to be more true than what you wrote. Perhaps you can find a way to word it without making it "either/or" rather than leaping into a dispute that doesn't need to exist. heidimo 20:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Can you please explain why you find it more true? Could you give an example. I may miss something. Andries 20:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, you are missing something. Wikipedia is not a forum for "original research," meaning that your own personal experience is not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. You are creating contention that doesn't need to exist, and you are trying to incorporate your own interpretation of your own experience into a Wikipedia article, which is not encyclopedic. To explain intuition to you is beyond the scope of what I'm willing to do on my own time. I teach this for a living; I don't teach it for free. Best wishes, heidimo 21:35, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
- It was so much at variance with my own experience and interpretation of the word intuition that I thought it was a mistake. It was not my intention to put original research in Wikipedia. Andries 04:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Emergency
Dear Heidimo, the WikiRepublic is in danger! Wikipolice make their coup d'êtat! Please add your voice and come help John here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr-Natural-Health#User:Theresa_knott). Thank you ! - Yours, - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I'm not aware of the crisis. Details? heidimo 00:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration re: Mr-Natural-Health
I've put in an arbitration request re: Mr-Natural-Health. You may or may not wish to add to it. - David Gerard 11:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Categories implement with the new system changes has allowed us to bypass alternative medicine with the collective (i.e., category:alternative medicine) of some 200 articles. And, summer has just begun. Click on it to take a look. -- John Gohde 17:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Looks good! But what does it mean? Thanks for all your hard work on this project. heidimo 21:02, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It means that you can now refer to the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine in terms of its accomplishments, results or output. Alternative medicine now means our project rather than the article on alternative medicine. Alternative medicine now refers to our tiny article series box on that article rather than to the text on that article. Alternative medicine now means our collective of 200 articles on CAM. Category:alternative medicine, or our project, can now be legally referred to on the article side. And, when you mention category:alternative medicine to a science troll, they now know that you are referring to our project. -- John Gohde 15:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Alternative medicine
Hi there. I've made some changes to the Alternative Medicine Wikiproject. As a participant, you may want to have a look at the page and at its talk page. -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)