I believe numerous requests have been made for
mediation, at New Imperialism, over the past year.
�
I would like to request arbitration at [[New
Imperialism]], where 172 is reverting several
paragraphs I have added; on the grounds that "some" of
the information belongs "elsewhere".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=New_Imperialism&diff=0&oldid=193…
I think such reversions should be a bannable offence,
it is inappropriate to make mass reverts, simply
because you are aesthetically unhappy with a portion
of a user's edits.
I am trying to improve the Wiki, and my attempts are
constantly opposed by a small group of hostile users;
who make no attempt to collaborate, instead, they
attack and revert for any minor mistake. I expect the
arbitration committee to deal with this issue.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:52:21 +0000
From: Anthere <anthere6(a)sleep-dream-die.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] HomePage
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Message-ID:
<E1AUcTc-0002Z9-KH.2003-12-12-01-52-21(a)cmailm5.svr.pol.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> >Notice that in bridge, there's a dead...
> >
> I know that "le mort" is the correct term in French,
> but the literal
> translation doesn't work here. In English we call it
> "the dummy".
> > Eclecticology
quite amazing the number of things I am learning in
Wikipedia...
the dummy...thanks Ec !
--------
Guys, naturally, you all understood that
anthere6(a)sleep-dream-die.com is not me. This is copy
of an old public email, perhaps a year ago.
I received a personal copy of that stuff myself on
anthere6. It looks like there was a dirty thing
attached to it (I am not sure, PC virus on macintosh
are luckily not very efficient :-)).
I hope no one had problem.
Might be wise to add this adress to the list of
forbidden adress. I suppose someone liberated the mail
by mistake. It should have been stop by the spam virus
killer, no ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
On Dec 11, 2003, at 22:31, Toby Bartels wrote:
> According to my school's mailing system,
> there was a virus attached to this message.
> So don't open the attachment!
Judging from the logs, the message was held for moderation (since it
does _not_ come from a subscribed address). Someone presumably let it
through thinking it was a genuine message from Anthere.
(Note that the real Anthere uses a Mac and is unlikely to be sending
Windows viruses around, particularly not with a different address and
through an ISP in the United Kingdom.)
I'll see about installing a virus scrubber. Sigh... I've removed the
attachment from the list archives, but what's mailed out is mailed out.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> >Notice that in bridge, there's a dead...
> >
> I know that "le mort" is the correct term in French,
> but the literal
> translation doesn't work here. In English we call it
> "the dummy".
>
> Eclecticology
quite amazing the number of things I am learning in
Wikipedia...
the dummy...thanks Ec !
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>From - Thu Feb 20 13:04:21 2003
X-UIDL: 3e54d27300000005
X-Mozilla-Status: 0019
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
In light of the Cunctator's keen observations....
I wonder what people mean when they say "most scientists believe X".
This has a bearing on how we write about non-mainstream ideas such as
alternative medicine.
1. What is a majority view?
If indeed 51% of scientists (or doctors holding a Western
M.D. degree, or moviegoers, or Linux enthusiasts) BELIEVE A CERTAIN
THING, then the article should simply report that the indicated
proportion of the group in question adheres to that POV.
If the majority is larger than 51% - say, 95% - we can
safely call that an "overwhelming majority". If it is 99.8%
we can say "virtually all". (Note that some published
writers might considered 2/3 to be "overwhelming", but that
is just THEIR POV! If as many as 1/3 of a group disagree
with something, our readers are better served by telling
them that 2/3 of the group believe it, and that 1/3 of the group
disbelieve it).
Having stated the general principle, I wonder how many are still with
me? Getting bored? Angry? . . .
2. Chiropractic as an example
I'd L-O-V-E to know what proportion of Western M.D. "health
professionals" give credence to any of the "alternative" practices our
Wikipedia articles are starting to describe.
In two out of two cases I know of (admittedly not a 'scientific'
sample), men with severe back pain got immediate, lasting relief via
chiropractic. One was a soldier who said he wrenched his back when he
stepped into a hole on a road march; muscle relaxants and so on tried by
military doctors didn't help him at all, he said; he wound up spending
his entire monthly salary on chiropractic treatment, which he said
"worked".
The other case was me: I suffered a muscle spasm when I
bent over to plug in a computer; after getting my back
cracked at a chiropractor's office I immediately felt
better and didn't even need aspirin.
Perhaps we can distinguish chiropractic's effectiveness at treating back
pain, from its more general claims; there might be a part of the system
which can be proven to work, even if other parts remain dismissed by
M.D.'s as pseudoscientific quackery.
3. Approaches to alternative medicine
Can we generalize from how we talk about chiropractic
(which seems to work for SOME complaints) to how we ought
to describe other "alternative" approaches?
How about acupuncture? I've read anecdotal reports that inserting
needles at certain points can dull pain, even that as intense as a woman
experiences in childbirth. Surely this has been the object of controlled
studies.
I just read last month about a study on Echinacea,
comparing its effectiveness vs. placebo. Well, can't we
report those study results?
4. Conclusion
Some people believe surgery and synthetic drugs are "bad
for you" and are looking for other ways to treat ailments.
I suggest we report NEUTRALLY on their motives and results.
Uncle Ed
I've just blocked User:Angelique for the same reason
that Allan blocked NightCrawler. She was yet another
reincarnation of DW, and again showed the same
behaviour and was the same IP as DW did.
Angela.
[WikiEN-l] Re: User:NightCrawler
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008493.html)
> I looked up a single NightCrawler log entry. It came
from the same small
> range DW was using.
OK. I put a block on User:NightCrawler.
--
Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)
________________________________________________________________________
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21064/*http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
I would like to request arbitration at [[New Imperialism]], where 172 is reverting several paragraphs I have added; on the grounds that "some" of the information belongs "elsewhere". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=New_Imperialism&diff=0&oldid=193… think such reversions should be a bannable offence, it is inappropriate to make mass reverts, simply because you are aesthetically unhappy with a portion of a user's edits.I am trying to improve the Wiki, and my attempts are constantly opposed by a small group of hostile users; who make no attempt to collaborate, instead, they attack and revert for any minor mistake. I expect the arbitration committee to deal with this issue.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
Hi all,
I am the last person who want to see Wikipedia turned into a repository
for flaky, New Age esotericisms, but at the same time the scientism which
has manifested itself in the past few days in response to Mr Natural
Health's questionable contributions is also profoundly disturbing and
likewise a very insidious form of non-neutrality.
Take for example this comment by user Snoyes on the [[Alternative
medicine]] talk page:
> The thing is that once numerous randomized controlled trials and
double-blind experiments have shown a treatment to be effective, it is by
definition not an alternative medicine anymore. It is therefore quite
simply a case of the rigour of science vs. unsubstantiated claims by
wonder-healers. -- snoyes
Obviously, it has a certain logic to it, but such an attitude is *so*
dualistic and dogmatic.
Or take this edit summary from the page history of the same article by
user Robert Merkel:
> (cur) (last) . . 01:30, 7 Dec 2003 . . Robert Merkel (put a big fat
"doctors think this stuff is bogus" sentence near the top of the article,
where it belongs, rather than burying it at the bottom)
This individual hasn't a shred of impartiality regarding the subject.
I am the only one disturbed by this?
Perhaps it is because I live in Northern Europe, where these issues are
less polarized, but for me issue is anything but black and white.
Alternative medicine is well-established here. My health insurance pays
for various forms of it (some but not all). My GP is an MD with a
conventional medical training, but anthroposophic orientation (Rudolf
Steiner stuff). That means he prescribes both mainstream medicines as
well as alternative therapies as he sees fit.
I realize that double-blind trials are the gold standard in Western
science, and I don't want to argue with that; however, there vast realms
of human knowledge which have not yet been verified by these means, and to
dismiss such empirical knowledge out of hand is both foolish and not our
job. For example, I have travelled extensively in South American and one
sees that vast amount of "alternative medicine" practiced there (I put it
in quotes because for people there it is not "alternative"). I doubt that
chewing coca leaves has ever been "proven" effective by Western scientific
protocols for altitude sickness but millions of people in the Sierra
believe it does. I was in a small village in the Altiplano once where the
women cultivated a small, bitter green potato for its birth control
properties. Again, something which I doubt has ever been "proven", but at
the same time something one can't simply dismiss as quaint folklore.
Can we get away from looking at healing as two opposing factions and see
it rather as a broad spectrum of techniques, ranging from nuclear medicine
to voodoo, of which some is "scientific", some is pragmatic, and all which
have pros and cons?
In any case, at the moment the [[Alternative medicine]] article is una
gran porquería.
V.
----- Original Message -----
From: tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com>
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2003 4:47 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User Leumi
>
>
> Viajero wrote:
>
> >He is another young teenager with Asperger's; maybe this has
> >something to do with it.
> >
> >
> Is this beginning to be a problem on Wikipedia?
> What can we do to help new users with impairments that affect
> their
> social skills?
It may be, though I dunno. I personally don't have Asperger's, but am very similar; I have, ahem...minimal social skills. It probably doesn't show up online, but only because my main issue doesn't come through, in that I can't read facial expressions or tone of voice*.
John
* Yes, this means I have *extreme* difficulty understanding sarcasm.
I'll be offline most of today.
Those who have volunteered for mediation committee since the original
appointments, don't fear. You're all approved as far as I know, it's
just that I have to gather the list together and repost the details.
Is there a wiki page with the list, so I can compare to my piece of
paper notes?
--Jimbo