User talk:Martinphi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1   Archive 2   Archive 3   Archive 4   Archive 5   Archive 6   Archive 7   Archive 8   Archive 9   Archive 10   Archive 11   Archive 12   Archive 13   Archive 14
Paranormal Primer
I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[1]


Image:Martinphi_Pentacle.gif This user is a part of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This user is a participant of Wikiproject Parapsychology.

Contents


♥Φ♥Φ♥Φ Barnstars Φ♥Φ♥Φ♥ 

[edit] Chiropractic

It was not my intention to mischaracterize your edit history over at the Chiropractic RfC. I think I was counting your edits to Reiki as CAM-related since I have myself not spent much time at the historical or sociological sections of that article. If you would like, I can redact that part of my comment. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - things have a way of not fitting neatly into our nice little boxes without spilling over one way or another. :) - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Your edit was an NPOV violation. Your edit summary was: "I do not know the content of this edit. I do know that it is significantly different, and has no consensus. Thus, please form consensus on the talk page first" You reverted without reviewing the content or sources. Please do not blindly revert without reviewing the material first. QuackGuru 01:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the summary, and I an another editor said on the talk page, that is a contentious article, and you should form consensus before edit warring changes in. NPOV is not important in the short run, and is anyway a matter of opinion of editors. If that version violates NPOV, then form a consensus for a better version, and put it in only with consensus. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is not important? NPOV is very important. You reverted without reviewing the material. Please stop. QuackGuru 02:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remove this tag from the article and stop misusing my comments. QuackGuru 02:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi wrote in part: "NPOV is not important in the short run" Martinphi seems to have acknowledged that his edit was a WP:POVPUSH. Martinphi, NPOV is always important. Please consider improving on the edit rather than reverting material against WP:NPOV. Please respect NPOV. QuackGuru 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by consensus. You really need to form consensus before edit warring changes in. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You have not specifically disputed anything and you do realize your edit was in direct violation of NPOV. Am I right? QuackGuru 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV is a matter of editorial opinion. Wikipeida works by consensus. Thus, you need to get the consensus of others to find NPOV, or else in an extreme situation go through the dispute resolution process. But don't edit war changes in. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that Martinphi has no specifc objections to the NPOV improvements based on NPOV. Martinphi did revert obvious NPOV improvements. Martinphi reverted without reviewing the content. Martinphi has not disputed any specific content. QuackGuru 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I rather think that if you are attempting to set me up for a sanction you should review your own editing behavior. Edit warring on a controversial article doesn't look good, especially when other editors were asking you not to before hand. Why not ask for mediation if you are so upset at the POV condition? I put a POV tag on the article to address your concerns. My position is that any change made without consensus is not a good idea on that article. And, I think you need to ask for mediation. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I recommend you do not mention the website of a Wikipedian. It is getting close to outing. I hope you will redact your comment. QuackGuru 05:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please redact your comments and remove the links. You could get indef-blocked. QuackGuru 06:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Eh. I'll take out the links, because they might -might- violate the letter of policy, if not the spirit. The comment is only a mention, and does not reveal any personal information which is not already in his ArbCom- which is public information already posted on Wikipedia. Come to think of it, per your suggestion, I'll also change the post to be only the information already in WP. Thanks (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Martin. As you can see from the yellow bar on this page, the ArbComs took this matter very seriously and are hiding it from public view, and it should be kept that way. That stuff was mostly from before I started editing here. -- Fyslee / talk 06:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I changed it to only what is in the ArbCom, which is the decision, not the evidence page which is only available through the history. I have no intent to bash you, I'm merely talking about the POVs which are there on that chiro page, which I believe are making it generally difficult for the article to settle down. I think your POV on alt med is generally right, though maybe not always. I do rather think what I posted is public information, even the links I posted and then took out. I would not have posted any of it thinking I was revealing something not already well known. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not much of an "activist" anymore, as I haven't updated my site for a long time (no access) and I've dropped out of other activities, such as discussion lists. I'm just getting too tired and old for it. So that stuff is pretty stale, even though it is still a resource for some people. I just like to keep my Wikipedia activities and my other activities separate, and that applies to my editing as well. While we all have various POV in real life, they should be subordinated to Wikipedia policies while we are here, and thus our real life affiliations should not be used against us here, and in fact that is specifically listed as a personal attack in the WP:NPA policy: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." That's why (during the CorticoSpinal blocking), even though he did something that outed me, I didn't mention his real name (although it's readily available here), or his address, or his office, or any such private information. It can easily be found, but it would be an unfair personal attack that blended real life information with his wiki identity. I think it's best that we all treat each other as Wikipedians, and respect each other's privacy. Even your identity is readily available, but you won't see me using it against you. -- Fyslee / talk 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll take the mention of you out completely if you like, though I don't think it was news to anyone there. Or you should feel free to do it yourself, because I'm going to bed. It was just a convenient example which I happened to know about (and I didn't expect the great big reaction, which merely had the effect of making me do a lot of research on you, which I wouldn't otherwise have done... Never saw that evidence page before tonight. Heh). ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If you choose to do it, I'd appreciate it. It does nothing to help me or the discussion. The point can be made without using me as an example. There are plenty of very notable persons and websites to mention. -- Fyslee / talk 06:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There are? Really? Editing that article? Well, I wouldn't doubt it. Hey..... you just revealed personal info! ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm talking about publically known websites by non Wikipedians. -- Fyslee / talk 06:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, just noticed the "editing that article" bit. No, I don't know of any other editors at Wikipedia (besides Barrett, who doesn't edit) who have such websites. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, well I don't know of any. COI is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just about edits.
In the case of chiro I really think the push to have it all put under fringe was probably misguided. What needs to be done is that there should be a thorough explication of the difference between what is accepted in mainstream medical practice, and what is considered fringe, and quackery if practiced in certain ways. Eubulides said the same thing, that it isn't all quackery, or at least is not considered so. So just make the distinction clear, and let the mainstream part breathe a bit. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree about the fringe push. You may have noticed that I didn't participate in the discussion to any real degree, if at all. Partially because I didn't follow it, and partially because I didn't have the time and was busy with other things. Chiropractic is a funny blend of fringe practices and beliefs, associated with manipulative therapies that have their place, just not to the degree as believed by most DCs. It is also dominated by a huge majority of DCs who were educated before EBM began to make its inroads in chiropractic. It tolerates many forms of fraud and quackery because of its historical development, and because BJ Palmer was himself a big conman and scammer. He invented many dubious quack devices. He learned some of his trickery and marketing skills as a young man working with magicians in the circus, was a "wharf rat" and got kicked out of school, and was generally a problematic child for his father. They were true enemies most of their lives, leaving BJ in control of the profession and living as a multimillionaire, while his father died a poor outcast from the profession. A rather tragic ending for DD. -- Fyslee / talk 01:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, there's got to be a great book in there, I'm sure it's been written by someone. Any idea of how the mainstream part (where I assume chiro is going) can be made seperate in the article from where it's been coming from and still is to whatever extent? I think the chiros at the article are pretty unhappy with the fringe stuff themselves since it gives them a bad name, but also want the good stuff to be treated well in context. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, there are many books about the very fascinating chiropractic profession and its history. I've studied it and followed it for years and get my information from chiropractors, and have several as close personal friends. To get a better understanding of it, here are some good places to start:

There is a movement in the right direction that is in conflict with where the profession is now and the way it is practiced by very large numbers of chiropractors. There is no definitive way of defining a "progressive" or "modern" chiropractor, since it's such a mixed bag, and such definitions are often wishful thinking (OR crystal ball) written from only one POV that ignores the realities. Right now what Forrest Gump said about filled chocolates still applies to the profession: "A chiropractic office is like a box of chocolates: YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET!" The job for the article editors is to tell the whole story, good and bad, facts and opinions, without whitewashing. That demands collaborative editing designed to produce the best article on the subject ever written. All existing articles suffer from being written primarily from one or the other POV. That's okay elsewhere, but NPOV requires coverage of all POV. -- Fyslee / talk 05:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sheldrake RfC

Perhaps you could look at and comment on the RfC at the Sheldrake talk page and the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard? I wonder whether these issues have been raised about these journals (Rivista and JSPR) and reliable sources in general, in your experience. It would seem they would have been dealt with elsewhere, but I don't know where. Merci, EPadmirateur (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arb stuff

Arb votes are a straight majority of the arbs that are active at the time the case is closed. As for time limits, they are generally clear on that in the ruling in some fashion. If they don't specify a time limit (like "restricted for one year"), it is PROBABLY indefinite, but to be sure, you'd have to refer me to a specific case so I read the ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To note

Please see User talk:Vassyana#User:QuackGuru. Vassyana (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)