User talk:Travisthurston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  (A little late but better than never :-) )--Tone 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image unsourced

The proctology.JPG image you uploaded doesn't state a source, and I'm conserned that you, probably with good intentions, pulled it off a commercial website via Google or something. Therefore I tagged it. Please clarify this matter, because otherwise the picture might be deleted. --Steven Fruitsmaak 14:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Proctology.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Proctology.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

[edit] Pseudoscience category

Hi Travisthurston - thank you for removing category:pseudoscience from several pages; you beat me to it. I wouldn't call placement of the tag (or its removal) vandalism, though (check out WP:VAN). But I agree totally with your edit summaries that discussion on the talk pages is a must. Thanks very much! cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikistalking and home email

I have reported you. The pseudoscience issues are discussed on the psuedoscience talk page. There is good authority for placing the labels. Pls do not wikistalk me or contact me again at my home email. Mccready 16:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pseudoscience

leave the category where it belongs. It takes more time than it's worth to protect your good edits otherwise. And let me repeat: DON'T send me any email or any abusive email. Your veiled attempts to bring my personal details into this are AGAINST wikipedia policy and people have been banned for it. Mccready 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Hi. Just to let you know that adding the {{protected}} tag does not add any protection - only administrators can do that. If you want the page protected then contact an administrator or list the page at WP:RPP. Please don't add the template unless the page is actually protected. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Visit Lebanon

I liked the new userbox that you created so I used it right away. But how did you get this idea? :-) CG 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New userboxes

Per the terms of the German userbox solution new userboxes should not be created in template space. Please read up on the current practices. That page has instructions on how to properly create userfied userboxes. --Cyde Weys 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naturopathic Medicine and Naturopathy

Hi Trav, it's certainly a possibility to make the split, as the Naturopathic medicine page currently has to do everything. The only thing is that there is also a Natural hygiene article (and people have tried to merge that with Naturopathic medicine), Nutripathy, Holistic health, Natural health, so it would be worth considering whether to have a Naturopathy (disambiguation) page like this: Osteopathy (disambiguation) to clarify the differences between the articles. I split Osteopathic medicine to Osteopathy, but there was nobody else around to help with the heavy lifting, so it kind of got stuck unfinished, but I would be willing to work with you on Naturopathy. --apers0n 05:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw you modified the Template:Alternative medical systems to include Osteopathic medicine in place of Osteopathy - actually Osteopathic medicine is not an alternative medical system, today it is allopathic in it's approach, Osteopathy is the alternative system. I would like to change the Osteopathy article to reflect that when I have time. Actually Osteopathic medicine is not even mentioned as an alternative medical system [1], but "a form of conventional medicine", classified as one of the 'Manipulative and Body-Based Methods' whereas Naturopathic medicine and Naturopathy are used interchangeably as an alt med system. --apers0n 05:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there could be a better structure to the categorisation of Alt med on Wikipedia, but if it is not referenced from somewhere independent like a government institution it would only lead to conflict amongst WP editors. I looked at the WHO definitions, but they are a bit vague. I suppose we should work with what we have got until someone finds something better. We can talk about Naturopathy/Naturopathic medicine on Skype if you like... --apers0n 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have requested authorisation to Skype you about this. --apers0n 05:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCready to be banned for 10-days on Pseudoscience articles

You might want to weigh in your thoughts here, if you haven't already.

By the way, that "new messages" practical joke totally fooled me! Heh, heh. TheDoctorIsIn 18:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [2]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [3] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A model criticism section

A model criticism section I found at the Renewable Energy article, here<---
I think it is a great example of how we can all make artcles better.
Here is the sample:

   * Renewable energy
         o Types
               + Hydro (including criticism of hydro)
               + Biofuel (including criticism of biofuel)
               + Solar (including criticism of solar)

— credit to Omegatron

[edit] License tagging for Image:NHC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NHC.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vitalism

Thanks for bringing that article to my attention![4] I'd noticed some recent activity there and some outstanding edits by User:Gleng. (His recent comments on pseudoscience on FloNight's user talk page were right on the money.) I'll keep an eye on it. Seems like there are similar dynamics as we've had in the past on pseudoscience, but at the moment there are some good cool heads keeping things in check. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 19:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this article to my attention as well. There is a lot of catching up I need to do. What are your specific grievances with the article as it stands now? Levine2112 04:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the barnstar, your words are much appreciated. Afraid though I have to go; best wishesGleng 14:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamation of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 04:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello,

I just fixed the GSE article per your request. I thought the headings in blue would be nicer for the article. Well... I was just being creative. Wikipedia is about being bold. I was a little too bold that time. On a personal note. Be cautious of GSE. This stuff has high levels of sythetic preservatives in it. On a lighter note, jump into the car and go straight to the health food store and buy no salt added whole grain bread, organic pasta, lots of farm fresh produce, and quality natural remedies that really work. You know... the good stuff.

Also, check out the website organic consumers association for the latest info. Thanks, Aubrey.

[edit] Ayurveda

I have found a bunch of references that I have added in the talk page that perhaps need to be used to expand the article.You expressed an interest in helping out in that article and I was wondering if you are still interested.If so, then please comment in the talk page.Thanks.Hkelkar 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

Is has been proposed that Biochemic Cell Salts be merged with Bioplasma. Please let us hear your opinion. -- Fyslee 15:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pseudoscience

I noticed that you removed holonomic brain theory from the pseudoscience category after I added it. From seeing the various protests regarding the pseudoscience category, I guess you are aware of the pros and cons and have reasons for your opinion. As a physics graduate student, I can only sigh and shake my head at the interference to human achievement in science caused by frauds dragging physics into some philosophy dreamed up during an acid trip.

I can only remind myself that "this is the price we pay for freedom". Let them have their opinions and just admire their imagination. Let them make money off it too...if some people are stimulated by their ideas then maybe they do have some real value. To be more blunt, if people are too ignorant to see through it then maybe they deserve to get ripped off anyway.

In any case, after dabbling in Wikipedia I quickly learned that these sorts of battles are a lost cause, and that one shouldn't waste time arguing with irrational people. It just seems that at least these kinds of articles ought to some kind of highly visible "controversial" tag, to make sure that casual readers are aware of the debate. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Badguy21 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Um yeah, that's why it is called a "theory". Your studies in physics can only understand what is observed, and we have only begun to understand that which we cannot see. See: Solipsism If you studied medicine, psychology, neurology or quantum physics, then theories like this probably wouldn't bother you so much... good luck with your coursework! --Travisthurston 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copyright violations

First, I want to say thank you for all the good edits to Wikipedia. However, I found 2 critical mistakes. Outside In and an old version of Natural Health Center are copied directly from their websites. They websites are strictly copyrighted (see bottom of their pages). Please don't do this and please revert any other copyright violations. Thank you. :) W3stfa11/Talk to me 01:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/User_talk%7ETravisthurston_d6e9.html"