User talk:Dematt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

4/20 - 9/21 2006

2

Contents 1 Are you really leaving? 2 Your Mediation Cabal case 3 Welcome back 4 List of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools in North America 5 Thanks! 6 The next steps at Stephen Barrett 7 RfM Stephen Barrett 8 Request for Mediation 9 Thank you 10 I was about to clear my page until 11 miss you, too 12 A little job 13 Citizendium article on Extinction (geology) 14 Need to re-think 15 Citizendium (again) 16 Temporary block 17 Help with Sockpuppet investigation? 18 Good morning, at least where I am! :) 19 AfD nomination of Quackery 20 Happy holidays! 21 Happy Healthy New Year! 22 A question about Quackwatch 23 Oh my goodness! 23.1 Apology 24 Question 25 The Chiropractic Theories: A Textbook of Scientific Research, By Robert A. Leach 26 reliability of CZ articles 27 I have had respect for you but now 28 AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism 29 Request for your opinion 30 Vaccination 31 Are you OK 32 Welcome back! 33 Mobilization vs. Manipulation Risk 34 NPOVing Chiropractic 35 Question 36 June 2008 37 Please reconsider major deletion from Chiropractic 38 No consensus 39 your edit does not match your edit summary 40 3RR

[edit] Are you really leaving?

Don't do that. Your always cool, level-headed, and good-natured presence will be sorely missed on all sorts of articles. MastCell 01:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back (are you back?) MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality. Kind regards, anthony[review] 18:29, April 17, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

I don't know if you remember me but you were a help to me when I first started out. I am still learning slowly but have gotten a lot better. I'm glad to see you back because you are an editor who is calm and has an open mind even if you do not agree. Again, I hope to see you around. --Crohnie 10:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools in North America

I was hoping you had time to chime in here.--Travisthurston 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for your greeting. Hope all's well. -- Fyslee/talk 20:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The next steps at Stephen Barrett

With the mediation halted, I have put together a compromise in the spirit of good faith here. I know there are other steps of WP:DR we can go through, including another attempt at mediation, but I am hoping we can all settle this amongst ourselves. I would appreciate your opinion on the compromise and/or your ideas of what the next steps may be. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfM Stephen Barrett

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Thank you

I just want to say you were quite patient and helpful to me. You really are a very nice editor and fair in your responses. Keep up the great work! Please except this barnstar from me for you help. I hope I did it correctly, if not please correct it so it is properly done, still learning this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please except this barnstar from Crohnie, Dematt you deserve this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome but you really deserve the barnstar for being so patient and helping me out. I will let you know what happens via email. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I was about to clear my page until

I was about to leave permanently and clear my pages until I saw the barnstar you left me. I don't do arguments very well and run from them. I thought things would be different here then on the net but I guess being attacked is going to happened no matter where I go. Thank you so very much for the barnstar. It actually brings tears to my eyes thinking someone took the time to think of me like this. Thank you very much, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I need to ask you this: why does the treatment my son gets only last the day, at least it did the last treatment. There is a doc talking about continuing the treatment a bit longer and if it continues to be such short term help then he wants him so see a surgeon to fix it. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Of course you can email me about this. Thanks again for all you help, understanding and helping me understand chiropractic. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like absolutely reasonable advice so far. The timing is about right to be looking to evaluate referral options if things don't work out. I'll email. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. Will get back to you as soon as I can. I'm really sick right now, a bug I think but it hard to tell a bug from Crohn's! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] miss you, too

saw your note on that talk page about CZ, and i miss you , too, Matt. I've been getting my site together- there is so much to do, and all the distractions of real life, to boot. Anyway, hope to work with you again someday, soon. DrSculerati 02:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

answered on my talk DrSculerati 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little job

I have taken the liberty of nominating you to do a little job. Read this section and see my nomination at the end:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Ernst -- Fyslee/talk 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a little change, but this is a sticky one. If we lower the bar, that opens it up to a large amount of data both pro and con that likely will not change the net result but could end up dragging on like the SB pages ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium article on Extinction (geology)

Hi Matt,

Thanks for your note on WP:DINO concerning the errors in Citizendium's Extinction article. I'm glad people are working on fixing the issue. I see they have already fixed the italics and spelling. However, the problematic Edmontosaurus-died-from-lack-of-conifers theory is still in the article! The source supposedly cited for that information, this page, does not mention either conifers or Edmontosaurus anywhere in the text. It's a very odd claim, and a false citation.

The thing that worries me the most about errors like this is that there doesn't seem to be an easy way to report errors to Citizendium. Few editors seem to have listed e-mail addresses, the forum approval system doesn't seem to work well (in my experience), and the one e-mail I did get sent off did not receive a prompt response. I realize since Citizendium is new, there are many bugs that need to be worked out, but there should be an easy way to contact the site in the case of errors. Thanks for your attention.

Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on all of these counts. Our challenge is more with the manpower in creating the software variables to help us allow people to do this. There has been lots of discussion, but the changes happen slowly! I can't wait till we get them all going! -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need to re-think

Hello Dematt,

thank you for welcoming me into the community. I was interested in the article on Chiropractic. Right now I am living very busy days....I hope to have some time in the future to bring up a conversation on some improvements I think can be made there. For now, I don't have the time to engage in ...debates. Frankly...too much for me right now. But, I hope you are still here then. Thank you.

Demonio71 Sept 7

[edit] Citizendium (again)

Hi Matt,

This is Firsfron again. I'm so sorry to bother you with Citizendium stuff on your Wikipedia account, and I realize this could quickly become annoying. I know you are not the "Citizendium complaints department" and you are busy writing articles for more than one encyclopedia. Still, there's just no way for a non-editor to correct errors on Citizendium (no-one has contact information, or if they do, they've already left the project; the forum registration system doesn't work for dubious types like myself, etc). So I come to you again. Sorry in advance for any stress these corrections cause. The last thing I want to do is offend or upset you. You've been quite responsive and helpful.

There's a major problem with Citizendium's article on Television. It's a wonderful article, very well-written, and the author is to be commended for including discussion of the important role the DuMont Television Network played in early U.S. television history. DuMont's prominent role is not well-remembered today, leading to entire books on the history of television to omit it entirely. I was pleasantly surprised to see it included in the Citizendium article. However, there are some errors that should be corrected before this article "goes live" (or whatever the term is). The article states With the collapse of the DuMont network in 1959, its three main affiliates were absorbed into ABC, which remained the smallest of the three networks througout most of this period. None of that is correct.

DuMont collapsed in 1955-1956 (cancelled most programs on April 1, 1955; final broadcast, Boxing from St. Nicholas Arena August 6, 1956). Even though some sources mistate the dates, the 1955 and '56 dates are supported by the most reputable sources: The DuMont Television Network: What Happened?, (Bergmann 2002); The Forgotten Network: DuMont and the Birth of American Television, (Weinstein, 2004); Total Television, (McNeil, 1996); and Clarke Ingram's DuMont site. I'm not aware of any source listing 1959 as DuMont's closure date.

DuMont's three owned and operated stations (WABD, WTTG, and WDTV) were certainly not absorbed into ABC: WDTV was bought by Westinghouse; WABD and WTTG became independent stations until purchased by FOX in 1985/6. DuMont's strongest affiliate stations, WGN-TV in Chicago and KTTV in Los Angeles, never affiliated with ABC. There was no absorbing of DuMont's major affiliates into ABC, and no source that I'm aware of states this. I have eight books on DuMont on my shelf, including Ted Bergmann's. Since Bergmann was an exec at DuMont, he would certainly know what happened to the company at the end.

The article states At the same time, the introduction of UHF frequencies added a new venue for smaller, independent television stations. Actually, UHF was never on a par with VHF, and being located on a UHF station only guaranteed a station would remain both small and independent, as the three post-50s commercial networks avoided affiliations with UHF stations because UHF station turnover was so high. The sentence isn't wrong, but the idea that the introduction of UHF created a "venue" should be avoided entirely: most UHFs from 1952 to the 1980s, even well-funded ventures, quickly folded. Also, in the photo caption, DuMont is spelled "Dumont"; that should also be avoided (Weinstein, 2004: "A note on spelling", in the introduction).

Matt, if you can somehow get these errors fixed, I would greatly appreciate it. I know you are quite busy with Citizendium duties and may not be able to respond immediately. I think Citizendium's television article is off to a great start, and would like to see it improved further. I had considered signing up for membership, but the personal information requirement, along with my duties on Wikipedia, preclude that. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem Firsfron, I can take a look. I am not familiar with the article itself or who is working on it (if anyone at this point). If not, I can make the changes myself - it is a wiki ;-). I'm sure if anything is incorrect, and someone actually knows this stuff as well as you, they will change it back, then we can go from there. I am 'young' enough to remember that my television only went to channel 13 and when UHF came out, we could only wish we could see what they were watching on UHF :-). Let me know if I get anything wrong.

You do know that you do not have to publish your CV, just let the constables see it. You do have to use your real name though - but if you are a hit man or something they will let you sign up with a pseudonym :D I think you would be a great addition to our small but growing virtual world. You can stay here, too! ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made some changes, see what you think. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Matt. The changes you made are, in my opinion, quite good. Thank you very much for your time. If you need exact page numbers for book citations, I can certainly provide those as well, though I'm at work right now and will have to go home to get them, and my (admittedly limited) understanding is that Citizendium frowns on Wikipedia's inline citation craze. I'd love to see Citizendium become a well-respected source of information, and it's quick responses like yours which make me think Citizendium is coming along quite well. Clearly, someone cared for this article; things like the old DuMont advert add a beautiful touch. From what I can tell, though, the main editor involved in the creation of the article has since left Citizendium and will not return. If you hadn't intervened, this article would still contain the mistakes, and possibly would for the forseeable future.

Your comment about being young when UHF came out ('52 when it was established, '64 when it was manditory on US TV sets) makes me think you must be quite 'young' indeed! I certainly don't remember it, but I do remember only getting four channels for many, many years. When my TV started picking up a low-quality UHF FOX signal back around 1989, I thought it was some sort of a miracle!

Thanks for the invite to Citizendium; I continue to consider it. Thanks again for all your assistance. I promise not to darken your talk page with further Citizendium critiques. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I firmly believe that we continue to grow as long as we are learning, and begin dying as we stop the learning process. I think it's impossible to learn "everything" about any subject. I'm certainly not an expert (on anything, really), but I know mistakes when I see 'em! At least on a couple of entirely obscure subjects. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary block

Really, you've been here long enough to know better - don't make WP:POINT violations of Quackery. I've given you a 31 hour block, you seem sensible enough, so just don't do it again. Vanished user ^talk 00:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Adam, I am more surprised at you? What makes you think I am trying to make a point? Pasteur, Lister and Semmelwies were all called quacks in their day. I have placed the reference, and there are more. Anyone who knows the history of medicine is aware of this. It is not a bad thing, it is a neutral thing. You have to keep in mind that Pasteur and Lister were chemists, the doctors of the day were very much put off by them; they called them quacks (and worse). That is common throughout history. It is not saying they are quacks, it was saying that they were "notable people that were called quacks".. See what I mean? I think you assumed I was calling them quacks, but it is quite the opposite. Please reconsider and let the collaboration process work. I am sure if I said something wrong, it will get worked out. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 01:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... you didn't do a very good job at justifying them (e.g. there was no mention in the text itself of why they would be considered quacks, or even that they were considered quacks) And the addition was, at least, poorly thought-out. But, well, if it was just a somewhat ill-thought out edit, I can't say any of us haven't had those. You must admit, though, that at the least they looked extremely out of place.

Anyway, I could pontificate a long time, but I suspect you'd rather I get to the unblocking. Vanished user ^talk 02:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Adam, If you click on the edit under that section in the Quackery article, you will see a commented out section that the previous authors of the stable version gave instructions about what to put in that section. Apparently I was not supposed to put the reason in.. so that the reader can decide. I can see how it would look strange. Maybe this should be clarified or something?

Anyway, I am much abliged, but it is time for me to call it a night for now. Thanks for reconsidering, I owe you one ;-) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I fo apologise: it's just that there's no real setup for it in the article, and so... well, I worked on various alternative medicine articles. Those are two of the greats of germ theory. Believe it or not, a lot of the alternative medicine proponents reject germ theory in favour of their preferred vitalist theories. And adding germ theory proponents to a list like that that includes a few alternate medicine proponents is just the WP:POINT violation some of the editors I've worked with would make on seeing a favoured quack in a list like that.

See what Wikipedia does to your faith in humanity? Awful, I swear! Vanished user ^talk 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to insert my 2 cents: there are plenty of editors of all stripes on alt-med topics who are probably richly deserving of a WP:POINT block, but Dematt's not one of them. He's always been a solid contributor, and I'm sure any appearance to the contrary was an unforunate misunderstanding. Glad to see it's sorted out. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I was also shocked to see "blocked" on my watchlist. I'm glad it was all straightened out. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 05:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[1] Hi Dematt, I too was shocked by this block esp. with you going out of your way to help me and m son. Is there anyway to remove the histories of this block to give you back a clean slate on the block log? I just think it's fair to have them removed since it was a communication problem. I find you to be very honest and you also listen to others and are fair to try to keep NPOV in mind. I just think it should be removed if possible. I'll send up another update as soon as I can. Again, thank you for helping me understand chiropractic protocols. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support this, as it was a misunderstanding. Vanished user ^talk 13:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Definite support. Dematt isn't the type to make a POINT vio. He's a very solid editor and I would definitely support him if he ever chose to be an admin. BTW Adam, I didn't know you were an admin. How about putting something on your user page to indicate that a bit more clearly. -- Fyslee / talk 15:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Adam! Off to work for me. I hope the change gets made soon. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any way to "purge" the block log; it's pretty much indelible. The best approach at this point is just to note that it was a misunderstanding, as exemplified in the unblock summary, and perhaps save a permalink to this discussion - that way, in case it should ever come up again, you can point people here to get the context. Every now and then I think the developers are asked to implement a way to clear a block log, but I think it's always been rejected as too easily abused. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can understand their point, but another possibility would be to a enable strikethrough and accompanying explanation and links.-- Fyslee / talk 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks everybody. I am totally touched by all the support, thank you all for making my day! I'm not worried about the block log. When you play with fire, you're bound to get burned occasionally. Adam was doing what he thought was best and lord knows this stuff gets complicated quickly. So no harm, no foul. I'll make sure an use the talk page next time;-) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 00:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it looks like my IP is still blocked, so I have a few hours left. See ya soon. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Sockpuppet investigation?

Re: User_talk:TheDoctorIsIn#Please_consider_re:_your_editing_relationship_with_Levine2112, WP:AGF. See [2]. I'm not sure how to approach this sockpuppet report. Levine will likely not participate in any informal discussion on the issue. I think TheDoctorIsIn should have a chance before a formal report is written. Other suggestions? --Ronz 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I would do in your case, either. Just be careful cause it looks like you are harrassing both of them. Aren't there ways for admins to find these things out? -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to suggest ways to reword what I've written, please do. I'm going forward with my next step in this, to ask for help in a meatpuppet investigation. I don't think TheDoctorIsIn is a sock (the same person using different accounts) of Levine2112. However, I think his edits justify a sockpuppet investigation as a meatpuppet. --Ronz 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Suspected_sock_puppets#Suggestions_for_a_suspected_meatpuppet_investigation.3F --Ronz 18:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if you think there is a meatpuppet, then you should just request an admin check it out. I would probably ask MastCell. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good morning, at least where I am! :)

I just wanted to pop in and say hello. I appreciated your help about how Chiropractic care for my son. Unfortunately it didn't work for him and he has gotten so bad that probably by the end of this week he will be referred to a neurosurgeon to get an opinion about the two ruptures in the mid part of his back. I have to admit, I think this is a good step for him to do. He has been in pain since leaving the army in 2002 and is way past do to feeling better. He suffers miserable these days.  :(

I have to say though, the Chiro he saw could never 'adjust that part of his back'. The muscles fought it and then the spasms he gets went crazy. The massage part though did help ease this for a little while. I did learn and understand a lot from you about what this Chiropractor was trying to do and I appreciate all the help. You are a very kind and patient person. I hope you have a wonderful day. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to email me if you would like.--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi CrohnieGal, good to hear from you. It sounds like you followed a perfectly rational approach to your sons condition and surgery is your next step. I do hope he finally gets some relief. There is nothing more miserable than back pain. Let me know how everything goes!!! In fact I want a play by play, even the specific name of the procedure they perform, okay? Just one question.. did the chiropractor refer him to the neurosurgeon or did he have to look for one on his own? -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Neither, his pain management dr is taking it to the next steps. I will email you when I know something for sure. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify the above that I said. He is on a HMO which requires referrals which in his case is very difficult to get from his primary. His pain doc sent him for an MRI of his ankle which is the cause of his back problems, 9+ months on crutches which the back problems were called "crutch leaning injuries". The last that was done, also sent by the pain doc, was a test with needle in different locations, EMG I think it was called but could be wrong with the name of this. Everything was going as expected for over an hour until the final needles went into the mid of his back. The tester said he went of the charts. This area is where he has the most damage, 2 or 3 damaged disks and lots of acute pain. On Thursday we both see the pain doc (I have been seeing the pain doc for around 4 years do to acute chronic pain issues from my many surgeries for Crohn's.) We both trust this doc immensely. The tester tried to explain but then just said that our pain doc would connect the dots for him. So, the next step will probably be med adjustments (maybe) and a referral for an opinion from a neurosurgeon. The doc was saying last month that because things have gotten so bad with his ankle, MRI showed it needed cleaning out) and the back pain is not controllable very well that the neurosurgeon he will see will be doing the kind of surgery less evasive, kind of like a key hole surgery. The surgery is supposed to be something like adding something like cement to stop the problems; at least this is the best analogy I can think of. My son is to the point that he is more than ready for the surgery, he wants and needs something to be done to get some sort of relief to get back to life again. This is the best I can explain right now but I will email you and let you know how the appt on Thursday goes. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I see on the Chiropractic article that there is a big discussion about whether adjustment are safe. Well, in case you are interested, his Chiropractic said that adjusting the mid back 'could possibly and most likely' cause big damage to his spine with adjusting it and said massage would be the better option. I know that this is just a testimony from me but I am sure someone could find citations stating this. Also, this Chiropractor was not against pain management and drugs, he just didn't like the amount my son was taking to try control his pain. He was very open and honest about how he dealt with Chiropractic problems. Like I said I don't know if this means anything or is helpful but I thought I would let you know. I lurk this article to see if there is anything I am missing to help my son. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good feedback, it sounds like your son has some good doctors. I am glad to hear that the chiropractor knew when not to manipulate. That is the kind of thing I am interested in hearing from the 'real world'. We read so many different things, I wonder how others treat. Keep me in touch, and I would love to see a icture of that MRI of the midback if you ever figure out how to email one:-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good morning, I wouldn't have a clue on how to send you the MRI. Some of these kinds of test come with a CD but unfortunately this one didn't. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I can ask my son about this. He has had many, and I mean a lot of MRI's to the mid back and upper neck. The neck disks are dried out, can't remember the right terminology. One suggestion I can make for you is if you have a patient that you want to do an MRI on, do the one in the tube, not the stapped in sitting one. That one hurt him for days! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Quackery

An article that you have been involved in editing, Quackery, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackery. Thank you. —Whig (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy holidays!

You are a very nice person and I remember the help and support you gave me. I just want to wish you a very happy and healthy holiday. May 2008 bring you much happiness. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Healthy New Year!

It is nice seeing you posting. I just want to wish you a very Happy and Healthy New Year! You were very helpful to me in the past and I just want to again say thank you. Some things have changed for this year with him. If interested drop me a line. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A question about Quackwatch

I wonder if you would consider looking at this section, its subsections. [3] I am hoping to get some advice on how to move this discussion forward. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anthon01, that looks pretty complicated. Give me a chance to absorb what has been said and I can at least give you my 2 cents, which is worth about 2 cents ;-) Welcome to WP! -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay Anthon01. It looks to me as though the Pharmacy source is an attempt to provide its readers with an unbiased evaluation of websites. It appears verifiable and reliable to me as an opinion piece. Having said that, I do think it would be POV to include only the limitations without some of the praise. Crohnie makes a good point about it being from 1999, but then I guess you would have to reconsider the "good" articles that were from before 2000 as well. Since this is an opinion piece, attribution is necessary to have it included I think. At this point, I don't think any of the suggestions have nailed it, yet, but theoretically you are getting closer; provided everyone embraces the idea of an encyclopedia that includes rather than deletes. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think that if any of the articles shows that changes were already made like the 'Pharmacy' then they too should be removed. If an article is out dated then it shouldn't be in the article, in my opinion, since it would be false information. I dont' remember any of the other articles being so blatently wrong and outdated as this one is, but I haven't read them for awhile now. But I do agree that picking just one section of the Pharmacy source goes against WP:POV and WP:Weight and probably some more policies. Of course this is just my opinion, but I think more time is needed to allow comments from other editors who edit this article too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dematt: Thanks for taking a look. As to praise, are you talking primary(from the author) or secondary (from another source that is retold by the author)? Could you point to an example of praise the you see in the article? I don't see any praise coming form the reviewer himself. From my view, the review is written form a NPOV. Some editors have suggested that it is a positive article. I see it as a neutral article with some criticism. Regarding attribution, I believe the text already attributes it to the reviewer. The text states "Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa PharmD discussed two articles from Quackwatch of particular interest to pharmacists." Is that inadequate?

Crohnie: The date of an article doesn't make it false. There are 152 references in the AIDS "featured article" and about 50 of them are 1999 or earlier. That is one third of the references. Would you advocate for their removal? Anthon01 (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty much one who "embraces the idea of an encyclopedia that includes rather than deletes." Speaking in principle here, and not just about this subject, the age of the references is immaterial unless other newer references show that the previous ones are outdated and wrong. IOW using one V & RS to properly determine the quality (or now only "former" quality) of another V & RS. That way it isn't editorial inclinations or POV that makes the decision based only on the age of the reference. Some very old references can still be of value. It just depends on the subject and what the reference is used for. -- Fyslee / talk 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that the update on QW shows that it is out dated, thus it is no longer correct or notable. I also believe that some older articles can be included as long as there is no new information showing that the information is incorrect. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I would like to ask Anthon, why is this so important to you? --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the Pharmaceutical article appears to be a neutral exchange of information intended for pharmacists as a review of the web sites that concern them. Anytime I use a reference, I work hard to leave the reader with the 'intent' that the author was trying to convey. I think this article was trying to convey QW in as much a neutral light as possible. Yes, he states that there are limitations, but if you notice, he is not saying the site was bad - only that it could be better "if". Having said that, I see no reason why the article cannot be used. I see no reason why the list of limitations that he noted can't be integrated into the QW article as these are verifiable facts/opinions about the site... good or bad, every site has them. If we were writing about the chiroweb site, we would expect someone to note that it was written by chiropractors... and they would be correct, good or bad. The trick is to make sure that we don't write it in such a way that it looks as though we think that is good or bad. Leave that to the reader to decide. It doesn't matter whether you or I think Stephen Barrett writing all the articles is good or not. To some, that is great, to other's it's not. We just state that he does.

As far as 'out of date'.. if the site has improved since then.. and we have verifiable information that says so, then it would be essential that we quote that source as well. Then decide whether the two POVs are worth including.. if not drop them out altogether through consensus.

There is a lot more to this, but rather than telling things that you probably already know, let me know if I've answered any of your concerns. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dematt, I think that is an excellent way to look at things. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Crohnie, I think I've mentioned this to you before, and I'll say it again, Dematt is worth listening to. He balances things in a good way, which is the NPOV way. Thanks Dematt. (Travelling again. Why don't friend's PCs save my password?...;-) -- Fyslee / talk 03:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Dematt has been helpful to me in many ways. I will always listen to what he has to say as he says it because he actually cares. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

PS:I think your friend's computer probably has cookies blocked. I have this problem sometime when I use my son's computer! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh my goodness!

Happened to be editing and noticed this -- one of the nicest wiki-things that's happened to me in a long time! You are too kind! Or, I should say, takes one to know one. ;-) Happy New Year, btw! I'm glad you stayed on WP, too; it's got some major problems, but (a) fighting the good fight and (b) picking one's battles, and of course (c) trying not to see it as a "fight" at all, can make a big difference. Thanks man! cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The pleasure has been all mine. I'm sorry I don't have the time to follow through on some of our discussions sometimes, but it is usually because you have already said everything better than I could. If you would ever like to hear my opinion, drop a note here and I will take a look. I can't promise you that I will agree all the time, but I also know that is not what you are looking for. Don't forget the 'happy' in Happy editing! -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Dematt you have still not apologised to me for running off an erroneously claiming I had broken the 3 revert rule. As a simple matter of courtesy and as a demonstration of good faith I hope you can bring yourself to make the apology. I am relaxed about this and realise mistakes happen. I make them to, but an apology would show what you are made of.Mccready (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mccready, I'm thinking you might be mistaking me for someone else. I don't think I have ever accused anyone of violating the 3RR rule. You must be thinking of Hughgr [4]. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 16:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was Hugh I apologise to you. All you chiros look the same to me :-) Mccready (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept the apology and appreciate the compliment, but I think Hughgr is probably much better looking ;-) -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi Dematt: I notice that the Pseudoscience category is not on the Chiropractic page. I wondering how you were able to keep it off that page and whether you consider it appropriate on the homeopathy page? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 03:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, keep an eye out here while I look into your question.. more later. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have no intention to rush you. Just meant to be a reminder just in case you forgot. Thanks again. Anthon01 (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just butting in here and giving my own POV on that one. I think it would be improper to apply the label (and category) to the Chiropractic article as a whole. It is applied, even by chiropractic V & RS, to certain aspects of chiropractic, and I am for doing that, but not the whole profession. It just happens to be an unfortunate fact that the legal and philosophical foundation of the profession (VS) is also correctly considered a pseudoscientific belief, but chiropractic is far more and too complex a matter to glibly label it all "pseudoscience", although many, including myself, might in a weak moment do it because VS is so all-pervasive in the subject in every way. It's not totally fair to many chiros who are diligent, intelligent, honest, and are helping people as best they can.

Here is one chiropractic source on the subject:

• Chiropractic: Science and Antiscience and Pseudoscience Side by Side

Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD, professor at the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic and notable historian of chiropractic, warns of pseudoscientific notions that still persist in the mindsets of some chiropractors

This search is also interesting and no doubt painful reading for many chiropractors, whether they subscribe to VS or not.

BTW Anthon01, you should know that I hold Dematt up on a pedestal as a model Wikipedian and have great respect for him. He has taught me many things, including to show more respect for chiropractors. He has not lived in vain! -- Fyslee / talk 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I am learning a lot today. Forgive me but I have often found your comments to be extremely dismissive of alt-med to an extreme. You are certainly seeming more balance in your view. But regarding your editing behavior on chiropratic, is it based on policy influenced by your POV or policy? Anthon01 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When I first came here and didn't know or understand policies, it was definitely based on my POV and what I saw as a chance to get the story right, including making sure the article told the whole story about chiropractic, both positive and negative. Since then I have learned much more about policies and the wisdom of NPOV as a tool to write a real encyclopedia. The subject has been a hobby of mine for many years and I have studied it, participated and lurked on chiropractic discussion groups, and know lots about it. I know so much that I have even been encouraged by MDs, PhDs, and DCs, to write a textbook. I have written over 200 pages, but now I don't dare publish because of threats to myself and my family. Regarding editing, I don't think any of us can say we are to some degree totally free of our own POV when editing, but I try to subordinate my POV under NPOV, which largely involves not being deletionist towards opposing POV. I was thrilled when Dematt arrived here and showed a lightning learning curve regarding NPOV and collaboration. That's when the chiropractic article really took off in many ways. Before that it was a constant battleground and stalemates were the order of the day with little article development. POV warriors ruled and chiropractors held the article hostage by refusing to allow any criticism, even when well-referenced. I really enjoyed just sitting back and watching Dematt work. He didn't exhibit the defensiveness so common (understandably so!) to members of a profession that has always been held "outside", and to some degree tried to stay outside. He has been a model for many of us who have come to respect him as a Wikipedian, chiropractor, and person. I wish he would become an admin. -- Fyslee / talk 17:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would vote in a heartbeat for Dematt to be an administrator. This is a good hearted person who cares about people, he helped me a lot in the past too. Dematt, go for it, become an administrator, you are the kind of administrator I think is really needed! --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I deserve all that, I'm no different than the rest of you. Anthon01, I have been watching the debate, so sorry for the slow response, but the answer to your question is not simple. As far as I am concerned, pseudoscience is a term used to motivate theorists to prove what they are saying. IOWs, scientists can't do all the work, they need the people who make the statement to do the leg work to prove that what they are saying is reasonable, because no-one wants to be labeled a pseudoscience and after all, if the one who comes up with the idea can't prove it, then who can. Now once a test has been developed and performed, the 'scientific community' will begin to evaluate the quality of the testing. This is what peer review is all about. Generally, as long as it adds to the knowledgebase, then we are all moving another step in the right direction. If it doesn't, the scientific community generally will ignore the information as well as the person that made the statement. My personal opinion is that the word pseudoscience should be used extremely sparingly, but thank goodness my opinion doesn't count at wikipedia. We are bound to V and RS and NPOV.

More later, I am hamstrung by time limits... ---- Dēmatt (chat) 17:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Chiropractic Theories: A Textbook of Scientific Research, By Robert A. Leach

FYI

• The Chiropractic Theories: A Textbook of Scientific Research - By Robert A. Leach

-- Fyslee / talk 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I bought that one;-) Let's see where it takes us. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reliability of CZ articles

Your edit summary was: this citation is probably not formatted correctly According to your edit summary, it seems like you fixed the reference but you deleted it. Deleting a reference becasue you think it is not formatted the way you like it is not a reason to completely delete the reference. The other references I added are formatted the same way but you did not delete them too. Please explain your edit or fix the reference. Though, I see nothing wrong with the reference. Take a look at closer look at the other formatted refs I added. I formatted the refs the same way. According to what Wikipedia policy you can delete a reference(s) becuase you think it was not formatted the way you like it. Your edit does not make any sense. Quack Guru 18:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

formatted reference

^[1]

Hi QuackGuru, sorry I didn't explain myself well. What I meant was; Larry Sanger did not write that, we did and it was imported to CZ where I kept it. I don't think giving Larry Sanger credit for all of Citizendium is the way to do it, but I don't know how to fix it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Quack Guru 02:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Is CZ articles reliable to use as references on Wikipedia? See WP:V policy. Quack Guru 03:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ Citizendium community. "Chiropractic — Chiropractic approach to healthcare", Citizendium. Retrieved on 2008-02-02. 

Hi QG, this is difficult for me to answer because I was partially responsible for editing the article on CZ. However, I can tell you that it was co-authored by two other reliable experts in their fields, neurophysiology and medicine. But, while one of my hopes is that CZ will be a verifiable and reliable source for wikipedia purposes, I think the community should use their collective judgement and make this decision carefully. I will abide by whatever decision is made. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 06:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This "approved article" has undergone a form of peer-review by credentialed topic experts. This confirms it is verifiable. Thanks. Quack Guru 07:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The reference template is used in part for first and last names. The ref name will be Citizendium community. Quack Guru 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back per comment on a noticeboard. Quack Guru 05:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have had respect for you but now

The way you helped me during my time of worrying was special to me. I gained great respect for you during our conversations and all you help and advice.

Well I just read the top of your user page of who you are and I have to say, my respect for you has grown. You are a beautiful person, keep up with those children you have. You are indeed a very special person in your own right. I just want to let you know that. I had only one child, did as many things humanly possible to help him become a wonderful adult, and I think I succeeded, I was a stay at home mom to raise him.

He hasn't set up the appointment with the surgeon yet, though I keep reminding him that even though he sees a surgeon, not all surgeon carry a knife in their back pocket. (my surgeon for my first surgery tried everything he could think of before cutting into me.) You take care and remember that there are people who appreciate all that you try to do, me being one of them. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Crohnie, that means more than you think - more than a Barnstar! :-) Thank you. I also got your email and will reply ASAP! -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism. Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for your opinion

Hi Dematt, I saw this post at the chiropratic article talk page [5] Since you are aware of things would you let me know more about this kind of pain treatment? Is this something viable for the situations you are aware of? I would appreciate your input about this. It of course caught my attentions, feel free to do it via email. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation on my talk page and the email explanation, greatly appreciated. Now kind of on a different note, other than family experiences I don't know much about Chiropractor practices. I just realized that with all the recent edits to the article I need to take the time to reread the article. The lead is much better than it was; which the only part I have gotten to. I will reread it and see if it now is balanced better for the average reader to understand the pros and cons of a chiropractor. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccination

Excellent work on the vaccination section of the chiropractic article. -- Fyslee / talk 15:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you know me, if we're gonna do this, at least lets get it right :-) Appreciate your staying involved here to! -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are you OK

Dematt, haven't seen you around these parts in awhile, hope everything is going well... Can't wait to say welcome back! CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back!

Hi, Dematt! I'd noticed you'd been away for a long time. It's good to see you back!! I just started editing Chiropractic again. We'll see if I have time to keep it up. The volume of discussion at that page can be hard to keep up with. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mobilization vs. Manipulation Risk

Hi Dematt. I agree with you on what the research says, however I am having a hard time tracking that down. Do you know of any particular sources that state that fact?DigitalC (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious too. I've read that mobilization was somewhat (never absolute!) safer than manipulation, and thus our courses (basic education and post-grad) in manual therapy always included extra precautions regarding this point. -- Fyslee / talk 14:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up. Most of what I pulled up was two years ago when Fyslee and I were working that section. I agree that the risk can be minimized further by using mobilization, but I think we all agree here that anything that stretches a 'susceptible' patient's vertebral artery is risky. From what I am reading recently (i.e. Task Force), it's not so much that spinal manipulation is the cause, but it is not knowing that the neck pain is the result of a dissection in the artery. I have heard opinion that repeated manipulations might eventually cause a dissection, but haven't seen anything conclusive (or even hypothesizing for that matter) in actual research. To claim such to be truth at this point would be misleading and I guess what they call fear mongering. I assume we will see some results in the next decade as we study it more. Of course the other fact also remains - that there are risks with the alternative treatments. So it becomes a risk/benefit issue - especially with real live people who are going to do something to relieve pain. In that case, both manipulation and mobilization are reasonable alternatives provided a proper assessment and diagnosis is made. -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that DCs commonly use not only SMT, but mobs and massage (myofascial techniques) as well. It seems like certain editors are trying to portray that all DCs will always use HVLA manips to deal with mechanical neck pain. Incorrect. Nor is that part of patient-centered care; which is the official position of the MAINSTREAM of the chiropractic profession. I can totally see how a mob held at end range can potentially occlude a structural deficient VA. Hopefully Bolton et al's research on the velocimeter to screen for VA damage will pay dividents for ALL manipulative clinicians (not just chiropractors).—Preceding unsigned comment added by CorticoSpinal (talk • contribs)

Think of it this way. The current state of research is that patients enter our offices complaining of neck pain and headaches. If the cause of those symptoms is dissection of the vertebral or carotid, then any movment of the head is contraindicated - whether by manipulation, mobilization, coughing, sneezing, picking up the family pet, turning to look out the rear window of your car, etc.. This is all that anyone can reliably say. The assertion that manipulation 'causes' stroke - even 'because of the multiple minor "traumas" that it is "supposed" to cause' is purely speculation at this point. It is okay to speculate, but it would be unscientific to create policy, or an article, based on speculation. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOVing Chiropractic

Welcome back, Dematt. I've made some changes to some of the sections that have been railroaded in the main article without proper consensus, but rather than blanket revert I have begun chipping away at either puff citations, misattribution and adding vital sources that present an alternative argument. Please feel free to investigate these changes and make any additions, corrections, reversions as you see fit. I'm asking you specifically because it seems like you've proven yourself to be quite adept at finding that middle ground and have the respect of skeptics. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI I have added you as an involved party at the cabal mediation dispute regarding chiropractic. If you don't wish to partake in the settings then I can delete your name. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for that! ;-) I'll take a look a little later. -- Dēmatt (chat) 05:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back, Dematt! Your wisdom, collaborative skills and humor are appreciated.--—CynRN ^(Talk) 15:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Would you mind filling me in on all this talk about "traps". It all looks a bit cryptic to me. Best, Jefffire (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, is there something going on? If people aren't playing fair I'd be quite happy to call them up on it, regardless of who it is. Jefffire (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, after a good night's sleep and looking over the diffs, I think I got disoriented and turned around. I should have just gone to bed;-) But it is good to know I can always use your help! -- Dēmatt (chat) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the email as well. Jefffire (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Chiropractic, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.[6] QuackGuru 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me you're kidding, QuackGuru. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. Thanks for keeping an eye out. Hopefully, you can see that I have removed a section that I consider synfully inaccurrate that was added last month against consensus. Rather than replace it with the section that was a consensus version from last year, I just took the whole thing out until we can work it out on the talk page. Being that it is pretty much a violation of NPOV and SYN and OR, I think it is better that we don't have that section up for the general public. I am sure we will be able to work something out, but it may take awhile. I don't think anyone will miss it and I don't think anyone else will be concerned as they know we are working on it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The external observers agreed with the NPOV improvements and commented at the RFC on the talk page. QuackGuru 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the Chiropractic page. You do not have consensus for your edit. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.[7] QuackGuru 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please reconsider major deletion from Chiropractic

I saw with some disappointment that a major chunk of Chiropractic was removed without discussion, much less consensus. Can you please reconsider that action? I followed up at Talk:Chiropractic#no agreement for blanking entire sections. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am just as surprised that you did not support my removal of material that was placed during an edit war without consensus because there were NPOV issues and SYN issues. Do you really think I intend to leave this article without a science section that you and I did not consider NPOV? If you would like to pull a section that you think is not NPOV, by all means please do, I will back you up. Don't you think it is about time we pulled together? -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of pulling together, and I don't think we're that far apart about content. But in this particular case I was leery about the procedure. I didn't think you intended to leave the article without a science section, but as a practical matter I expected that if the deletion had stuck there would have been a long period without a science section, which would have been a real minus. Anyway, it's better to have discussion before major changes like that. It's also much more work, alas; but I don't see any way around the work. Eubulides (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, I guess I can't blame you. I was working in a vacuum and just thought everyone would follow my logic. I see now that I probably wasn't clear in my concerns. Part of my problem is that I don't have large blocks of time to clearly write everything I am thinking or reading. For now I'll just place tags in the text on the article page and we can work till we get it right. -- Dēmatt (chat) 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a RFC on the NPOV changes. The external observers supported the improvements. QuackGuru 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dematt wrote in part: I am not reverting anyone's edits.[8] You did revert my edit.[9] QuackGuru 21:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No consensus

Dematt, there was no consensus for this change. Please consider self reverting. QuackGuru 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi QuackGuru, that is the reason for the template. It draws attention to a problem so that we will concentrate on it till we reach consensus, especially since you added that section before we reached consensus and then have edit warred to keep it in, ultimately resulting in the article being protected twice and the blocking of CorticoSpinal, who was a hard working editor. If you would consider reverting that section that you added without consensus, there would be no need for those templates. That would be appreciated. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a RFC and the external observers supported the NPOV improvements. There was no consensus for this change. QuackGuru 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Which external observers were those? -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review the RFC in which the external observers commented on the chiropractic talk page about the improvements. Do you support the RFC. Do you think you have consensus for this change. QuackGuru 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Which RfC? Please show me where I need consensus to tag an article.-- Dēmatt (chat) 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, it really makes no difference in the long run what external observers say, IF the regular editors of the article don't support it. If their arguments are convincing and the regular editors decide to follow the good advice, then great. But if the regulars aren't convinced, then external observers have no trump card in the situation, and you can just as well stop referring to them. Consensus is what rules the day, and it applies ONLY to the regular editors. -- Fyslee / talk 05:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your edit does not match your edit summary

Dematt wrote in his edit summary: replace with most approved version for now

However, more editors prefer draft 7. See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments on Education.2C licensing.2C and regulation 7. Draft 3 was never approved by most editors. QuackGuru 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I explained the NPOV changed on chiro talk. However, Dematt continues to add the disputed long end run of boring WHO quotes and information that is unreferenced.[10] QuackGuru 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have further explained the reasons for using draft 7.[11] This edit by Dematt added the disputed WHO quotes again.[12] Wikipedia is not a place to promote suggestions to become world wide standards. QuackGuru 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained the valid reasons with specifics for starting with draft 7. Please consider that my editing practices may be NPOV.[13] QuackGuru 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dematt wrote: "QuackGuru, when you are ready to talk specifics, let me know, otherwise all I see is tendentious editing that wastes valuable time for all of us, gets good editors blocked and pits good editors against each other. Please consider that your editing practices may be disruptive."[14] However, I have explained specifically why draft 7 is better. I did talk specifics. QuackGuru 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Who is QuackGuru talking to here? For the record, draft 3 was the most supported version when it was inserted, and as such, the edit summary did match the edit. DigitalC (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chiropractic. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. QuackGuru 20:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You've left me no choice. Please take me to whatever mediation you would like. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dematt wrote in his edit summary: OM this is getting tiresome, I'm ready if you are. Ready for what? I am confused by your edit summary. Please discuss. QuackGuru 20:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you have made four reverts today in a very short period of time (under 24 hours). The WHO quotes were deleted but you have added them in again.

Previous version without the WHO quotes.[15]

Revert 1[16]

Revert 2[17]

Revert 3[18]

Revert 4[19]

Please consider reverting your controversial edit. QuackGuru 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)