User talk:DigitalC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello DigitalC. I've been looking around the archives at the different perspectives and views on chiropractic. I'm sorry if I seem to contradict you. I see there are a lot of contracticting voices on the article. I think thats ok because debate is a darned good thing in a subject. I guess it'll get us forward.

I'm not working with just my beliefs here. I have research aplenty. My own view is you can take it as spiritual if you like. I take is more as a wholistic thing though. The spine being such a large organ will influence such a lot, and even posture can change your outlook and psychology. Maybe some of the research is a bit of a far cry. But I'm looking forward to better scientific measurement methods. Until then we got our views. I know Wikipedia allows all views and they can be stated. To my mind I think it'd be a great shame not to let patients benefit from the wide range of benefits chiropractic can give. I know I'm a softheart, but I like to help folk as much as I can. I think I speak for a lot of other chiropractic proponents. I fully accept and respect your view also. Arlen Wilps 08:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAR comment

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. Does that mean you would support relisting the article as a WP:GA? Please respond at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy article probation notification

I know you may already read this, but officially I apparently have to put this block of text on your talk page:

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you have postied this on my talk page, and you not "offically... ...have to put this block of text on [my] talk page", as I have not posted on homeopathy. If you have relevant things to say to me on my talk page, please feel free. Otherwise, please do not post junk on my talk page. DigitalC (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This was not junk. This is an official notification. The chiropractic article is related. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
How is the Chiropractic article related to any problems going on on Homeopathy? Furthermore, I have no made any disruptive edits to any pages. Until such point as I do, please refrain from posting such crap on my talk page. DigitalC (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If you have more questions you can go to the probation page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic

The text is related to the chiropractic article. It is about chiropractic issues. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT relevant to the subsection. I think it is valid information and belongs in the article, but not in the subsection on safety. Best to stick to the topic at hand. DigitalC (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the most relevant section for that information. You clearly stated it "belongs in the article" and your edit summary said in part [it is] "Well sourced." You have not said which section of the article it belongs to. You have not suggested which section would be better than the Safety section for the relevant text. If you think it belongs in another section then why have you not added it to that section. Please discuss. QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not debating that it does not belong in the article. Just because it belongs in the article does not mean it belongs in the safety section. The safety section should be short and to the point, and should not be discussing efficacy or cost-effectiveness. These belong in the poorly titled sub-article, Scientific investigation into chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You said it belongs in the article and now you think it does not belong in the article. Exactly where does it belong. QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Please AGF and drop the hostility. I am not going to debate with you where it does belong. It does NOT belong in the subsection on safety, as it is not about safety.DigitalC (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Until a better place is found for the well sourced text it should stay in the Safety section. I am convinced it can remain in the Safety section because it is relevant and you are unwilling to provide an explanation to an alternative place to put the valid information. Your comments do not match your edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It should not stay in the safety section, as it is not relevant to safety. We should take this to the article talk page, as we don't seem to be making any progress here. I do not needed to provide an explanation to an alternative place for you to put the information - it is NOT valid for the safety section. In fact, Eubulides has posted recently on the talk page about the same issue, that efficacy and cost-effectiveness should not be in the section on safety. DigitalC (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If you insist I will create a new Efficacy section with all the hard cold facts. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop with the passive-agressiveness. I have 'insisted' nothing to the sort of what you have just suggested. DigitalC (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, you said it does belong somewhere and I am going to put it somewhere. Thanks for you help. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good work on Chiropractic

DigitalC, I knew you had it in you ;-) I am very impressed. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Den of Nargun

Hi DigitalC,

I was probably mainly editing that article to put some photos in there. Any text information I added would have either come from the Mitchell River National Park park notes or signage in the park.

There's a link to park notes on the web already in the article (I may have even added it as I notice it's also in the MRNP Ref section). The paper based park notes I think had slightly different info - that's referenced on the MRNP page as (2004) Mitchell River National Park - Visitor Guide. Bairnsdale: Parks Victoria., which I'm fairly sure I added. However, re the Den of Nargun and Deadcock Den themselves, I actually think most of the info I added was from the park signage; I still have photos of them if they'd be of any help. Not entirely sure how to reference them. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS/N

Sorry, I was totally confused, it was a little cryptic. I hope I didn't come off as rude. Relata refero (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous of Project Chanology

Would it be possible to locate a reference that claims these attacks were perpetrated by the same group, that does not first cite Kevin Poulsen or Wired as its source? Reprints of the same source that cite that source are effectively just the same source, reprinted. As far as I can tell, the fountain of information regarding this claim still belches forth from a single point, that of convicted felon Kevin Poulsen via his position at Wired magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs) 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That other chan

There was some business that went down about 2 years ago now that ended up with many WP admins with a bad taste in their mouths. Mostly from the WP version of the Digg effect, really, but still, enough that at least admin I knew publicly derided it, and likely led to its placement on the auto-edit list.

Hope this explains your concerns from the Anonymous (group) page.

Logical2u (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

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. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Your warning here and recommendations are laughable. Unlike your edit, my edit WAS discussed on the relevant talk page. The information in question is currently being worked towards wording that is NPOV. No consensus has been reached at this time. Please refrain from using my talk page in the future. DigitalC (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You've reverted an edit three times. I needed to leave this warning here so that I might have you blocked for WP:3RR, if you go to 4RR--you can archive or delete this warning if you choose. Discussing it amongst anti-science POV editors does not legitimize your right to go beyond 3RR. Sorry about that. And I will respect your wishes to not come here, unless I have to drop another 3RR template.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You have already disrepected my wishes for you to stay off my talk page. Please stop with the harassment and the personal attacks. DigitalC (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I did not break WP:3RR, and I have never asserted a right to go beyond 3RR - in fact, I've never gone beyond 3RR.DigitalC (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution in the Process of Screening United States High School Student-Athletes for Cardiovascular Disease

I'm wondering if you've read the article. It discusses how bad an idea it is for chiropractors and naturopaths to be involved in cardio-work. As such, I feel my direct quote accurately represents the authors intent, whilst the version you have inserted two sentences below it in fact does not. The word "augmented" isn't even mentioned in the article, and frankly has an extremely ambiguous meaning in the context of the wiki-article. Let the authors speak for themselves on this. Jefffire (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Filll, I have already taken the challenege. Thanks though. DigitalC (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:Estevan

Dab pages are still "articles", so you would use AFD. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 15:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I will prod it first. If it gets removed, I'll take it to AfD then I guess.DigitalC (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How DARE you remover my question

This had a serious purpose and the term I used is from a poem by Brendan Behan. I'm now going to restore it, with the poem, and to report your rude and unhelpful conduct on the Reference Desk talk page. Might I suggest that you stay away from matters over which you clearly do not have the first clue. Tim O'Neil (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Stay away from me.Tim O'Neil (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Vitali

I did the best I could do reverting back to a real old diff which was completely without 'damage'. I have given the vandal the level 4 as I suspect he will revert again. 08:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC) FelisLeoTalk! 08:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carousel Theatre

Thanks for your suggestions and for the improvements that you've made to the Carousel Theatre entry. Cheers, 207.6.56.95 (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I have also signed on as a participant in the theatre wikiproject, and look forward to improving my editing skills and as many theatre entries as I can!Carole Higgins (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your feedback. I just added a few new edits to include some of the notable plays, this I hope also cleans up some of the previous references cited. CheersCarole Higgins (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to tell if a template is in use

On the left side of all Wikipedia pages there's a "what links here" link. Click on that while viewing the template, or any other page, and it shows all of the pages that link to the viewed page or template. For templates, that usually means it is in use on the linked page, but it is posible to link via the method that does not display the template, [[:Template:template name]]. Also in the templates for discussion area, on the line listing the template under discussion, there is a "links" item which does the same thing.
Cheers, -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew there was a way, and that it would be quite relevant to the TfD dicussions. DigitalC (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dealbreaker

Thanks for the welcome and advice - THE DEALBREAKER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dealbreaker (talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rick Dees

You reverted my entries. I added information about his early career and first marriage. As I indicated in the original post, I know Rick Dees personally. I was born and raised in Chapel Hill, where he went to school. I worked with him for a year at WSGN Radio, I knew his first wife Carolyn Craft; her brother, Ray Craft and I were friends in high school. I listened to Rick Dees on WKIX Radio when he was working there. I know his work habits while at WSGN and WMPS Radio. My posts were positive, complimentary and accurate. I know of no other way to "reference" adding information when the information is from personal experience, nor of "verifying" what I personally experienced. Want verification? Call me. Tar4heel2 (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Tar4heel2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tar4heel2 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I have a lot to learn about adding information to Wikipedia.
Much of the information in the existing article is not referenced, and two of your references links are dead links (Living Network #4, and #2). It irritates me that I am being edited in this way, and that personal experience holds no water. I'm not sure I understand how it is you are the gatekeeper of information on Rick Dees as well, with all due respect. Please explain your apparent "gatekeeper" status. Possibly it is that you are the original article author, but many of your comments in your original article appear to be unreferenced. My contributions were positive, insightful and material, and based on personal knowledge of the man and his first wife. I referenced my information as per the guidelines, so I am at a loss as to why you delete my additions. :Tar4heel2 (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Tar4heel2