User talk:Dshsfca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

How do I remove all association with this fraudulent exercise? Please use "English."

Dshsfca (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)dshsfca

Hello, Dshsfca, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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!  I no longer will participate in wholesale deletions of scholarly works because referees lack the specific criteria by which to judge claims. All my documented offerings from reliable and eminent sources have been purged, because of some ideological lack of referential frames.

Wiki had better understand some basic concepts like FACT/VALUE, SCIENCE/METHOD, which it has repeatedly shown hostility. I find none of the article reliable, knowing that such overt heavy-handed censorship prevails by referees without competence. Dshsfca (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)dshsfca

[edit] JMPT

If a magazine on astrology claimed it was "scientific," then you would accept it DESPITE evidence to the contrary? I am not questioning it as a reference, only the bogus appendage that it is a "Scientific Peer-Review Journal." That APPENDAGE is demonstrated to be FALSE. I.e.,

“The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics is the ONLY refereed, internationally indexed chiropractic scientific journal. JMPT was also selected as the offical [sic] research publication of the American Chiropractic Association.” emphasis added.

Either you don't understand words like "evidence," "substantiated," "warranted," "reliable," "only," and other empirical-related concepts, or you march to your own drummer.

This entire entry is UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION. Wiki has a NPOV policy. Obviously, you fail to understand a basic concept: A "controversial" hypothesis that purports its own "putative" phenomena is OPINION. Because the "conception" exists, a dictionary entry (if definition is possible) is warranted. An encyclopedic article, attempting to "justify" opinion is not.

Even ff the entry "vertebral subluxation" gave only its historical meanings, however variable Virgil Strange's manifest possibilities, that's FACTUAL information. But this entry makes unsubstantiated CLAIMS based on a highly CONTROVERSIAL hypothesis of highly-questionable reliability with its own "PUTATIVE phenomena (i.e., vertebral subluxation). IF YOU ALLOW THAT, at least permit a SUBSTANTIATED rebuttal from chiropractors who repudiate the hypothesis AND the "putative" phenomena.

The PROBLEM is the existence of this entry. Having allowed an UNSUBSTANTIATED HYPOTHESIS OF PUTATIVE PHENOMENA, (which would not meet external criteria as "evidence") readers should be aware that all the claims are highly SUSPECT and DUBIOUS. Yes, I'm convinced, because the chiropractic profession is convinced, and SCIENCE is convinced. LACK OF EVIDENCE for suppositions, ideas, "putative phenomena," is itself EVIDENCE for the lack of evidence. Wiki articles should have a higher standard than YOUR personal criteria and experience. Most of us appeal to REASON, EVIDENCE, RELIABLE TESTIMONY FROM RELIABLE SOURCES, and other EMPIRICAL and RATIONAL features.

READ the article from JMPT. If you still don't understand the distinction between an unsubstantiated hypothesis of putative phenomena, and FACT, or that the former is OPINION LACKING EVIDENCE, or the difference it makes, perhaps another, more enlightened referee can and will.

Dshsfca 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Tiddle D.S.H.

[edit] Continued....

Okay. I agree with the rules, always have, which is why I don't understand why the entry under "vertebral subluxation," which deviates from the rules, is permitted. But you obviously "have faith." You apparently dignify JSVR as "scientific." So another tact will be taken. Quotes from the chiropractic profession exclusively, with only the most minimal editorial intervention to make it cohesive. Every statement will be referenced. I've already posted it once, and it was again deleted. Explain, please?

This isn't a "what I believe" versus "what you believe" issue. Please refrain from taking this personally. Whether or not I think JVSR is scientific is irrelevant in terms of Wikipedia. What is relevant is that JVSR exists, it is topical to Vertebral Subluxataion and it is a notable source. As far as the deletion of your most recent additions to the article, I could only speculate on the reasons. However, I would recommend that you leave a post of the discussion page of the article or on the talk page of the user who deleted it. Typically, this is the best way to seek the answer to this kind of question. Oh, and remember to use four tildes to sign your posts. You can read about this and other preferred Wikipedia formats in the Welcome links that I have posted on this page. Best of luck! Levine2112 22:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TEXT

More recently, validation of chiropractic’s claims have been raised. National University of Health Service (formerly National College of Chiropractic), one of the oldest and most prestigious of the chiropractic colleges, states: “The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics is the only refereed, internationally indexed chiropractic scientific journal. JMPT was also selected as the offical [sic] research publication of the American Chiropractic Association.” emphasis added. A word search of “vertebral subluxation” on 7/6/06 reported 95 hits of articles that contain the phrase, or one of its two words. [1] The phrase appears to have multiple meanings, given different contexts. The most-cited example of “research” appears in Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 101-103 (February 2000), titled “Reflex effects of vertebral subluxations: the peripheral nervous system. An update.” The article is preceded by the context: “Presented as an invited presentation at the World Federation of Chiropractic Congress, Auckland, New Zealand, May 20, 1999” by Peter Bolten.

The Abstract in whole reads: “Background: The traditional chiropractic vertebral subluxation hypothesis proposes that vertebral misalignment cause illness, disease, or both. This hypothesis remains controversial. Objective: To briefly review and update experimental evidence concerning reflex effects of vertebral subluxations, particularly concerning peripheral nervous system responses to vertebral subluxations. Data source: Information was obtained from chiropractic or, scientific peer-reviewed literature concerning human or animal studies of neural responses to vertebral subluxation, vertebral displacement or movement, or both. Conclusion: Animal models suggest that vertebral displacements end putative vertebral subluxations may modulate activity in group I to IV afferent nerves. However, it is not clear whether these afferent nerves are modulated during normal day-to-day activities of living, if so, what segmental or whole-body reflex effects they may have. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000;23:101–3)” [2]

Peter Bolten, whose experiment was with dogs, assumes “putative” vertebral subluxations, or vertebral displacement, or movement from chiropractic literature as a possible description. Most importantly, a chiropractor’s article in “the only refereed, internationally indexed chiropractic scientific journal” concedes that “the traditional chiropractic vertebral subluxation hypothesis that misalignment cause illness, disease, or both” hypothesis remains controversial” (op. cit.) His conclusion is, “[a]nimal models suggest that putative vertebral subluxations may modulate activity” (op. cit., emphasis added), and reports, “it is not clear whether these afferent nerves are modulated during normal day-to-day activities of living, if so, what segmental or whole-body reflex effects may have” (op. cit., emphasis added).

[edit] Vertebral Subluxation

The information that you are adding to the Vertebral subluxation page is unsubstatiated opinions, but you are not presenting it as such. Please only add documentable research. If you are adding an opinion, please be sure to label it as such so that the reader is aware that they are reading an opinion and not a verifiable fact. Thank you and happy editing. Levine2112 01:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear D. Stephen Heersink, Just so you know, this isn't about Koren versus you. Koren didn't add the bit you're commenting on to Wikipedia. It was actually added by a chiropractic skeptic. As far as I know, Koren doesn't even edit on Wikipedia. Please read the links referenced in my Welcome post above. There you will find what kind of edits and additions are good and which are not allowed. The one to pay particular attention to is: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". This means that Wikipedia isn't a place to gripe or preach. That's what blogs and chatboards are for. Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable, notable information. And while POV is allowed, it should be noted as such and it should be coming from a notable source representational of of a significant portion of people. Please feel free to ask me any questions here, on my talk page, or on the discussion page for Vertebral Subluxation. Once again, let me urge to read the links in my Welcome message above. Happy editing. Levine2112 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First: The entire article is speculation, spinning a viewpoint that is not (1) accepted within the profession, (2) verified outside the profession, (3) accepted by any (ir)reputable member of the scientific community. Look at the purported definition. It's amorphousness is necessary, because it has no phenomena to back it up. "Vertebral subluxation" is an uproven hypothesis that purports phenomena that must exist for chiropractic to justify itself. If the article put itself in that context, then it's just another opinion, which is exactly what it is! Whether Wiki wants to be the soapbox for opinion is not for me to decide, but if the opinion of "vertebral subluxation" is allowed, surely one is entitled to evaluate that opinion by certain criteria, say "logic" and "science."
Second: Referencing one's self as an authority is hardly external validation. If the authors were quoted, as evidence of their claims, say for historical validation, whatever the claim is, that's one thing. But this is Koren's own doctrine, presented as "fact," when none of it is fact. As editor of The Journal of Vertebral Subluxation, Koren claims it is a "scientific peer-reviewed journal." That's incredulous. It's neither. (See Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, the only scientifically refereed journal that the American Chiropractic Association approves for research.) That journal, by the way, never uses the notion of "vertebral subluxation." I did edit out "scientific" from Koren's own entry; who cares about peer-review?
Third: I captioned my points under "Logical and Scientific Critique of Chiropractic Claims." This a very narrow and legitimate analysis by which to evaluate opinion. If my comments, which are verifiable, are not permissible, why are any of the other comments, which are not verifiable, allowed? The whole piece is a POV. No evidence exists for any of chiropractic's principal claims. That fact, and I stress "fact," is indisputable. Conversely, every statement of my analysis is verifiable. So you have unsubstantiated opinion about a hypothesis on one side, and verifiable statements of opinion on the other. The whole piece is nothing but opinion. So, either the whole topic should be deleted as opinion (which I'd prefer), or at least give readers an alternative opinion that is minimally verifiable, vs. someone's pure speculation on what must exist.
Thanks. D.S.H.
Thanks for the response. Allow me address to your three points:
  1. The entire article is speculation. Actually this is not true. While some organizations' definition of Vertebral Subluxation are somewhat abstract, the actual existence of these defintions is not. See? We, at Wikipedia, are not commenting on the definitions. We are merely pointing out that these definitions exist and that they represent a significant and relevant viewpoint (and can be cited).
  2. Referencing one's self as an authority is hardly external validation. In terms of Wikipedia's official stance on editing, this statement is incorrect. Please read What Wikipedia Is Not. Wiki policy clearly states: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Additionally, if you are referencing yourself, what is your authority relevant to the topic of Vertebral Subluxations? Are you a chiropractor? Are you a medical researcher? Is your viewpoint notable within this field? Maybe it is. I don't know you. But your blog says that you're a retired banker. Maybe there is something more to it though. I can only speculate. Know that the Koren text that was added to this article, was done so not by Koren himself but rather a chiropractic skeptic. Koren is notable within this field and therefore a citable reference to something he has to say on this matter is certainly allowed. Personally, I don't like was Koren says, but that doesn't mean that I can remove it from this article. With regards to removing the "Scientific" from JVSR's link... you did so to exercise your opinion, but you are neglecting the facts that JVSR is integral to this article, it is notable with regards to this topic, and that "Scientific" is part of their official description. You can see it on their website. Whether or not you agree with their "science" is irrelevant to the fact that it is part of their official description.
  3. "No evidence exists for any of chiropractic's principal claims" This is untrue. For instance, you yourself wanted to add a link to JMPT. You called it the only truly scientific journal researching chiropractic. With this in mind, allow me to point you to this abstract entitled: Reflex effects of vertebral subluxations: the peripheral nervous system. The conclusion in the abstract states that research suggests a correlation between vertebral subluxations and a negative affect on the nervous system. So you see? There is in fact evidence existing for VS. And please don't think that all of chiropractic lays its hope with this one piece of research. If you wish you may visit this page which lists chiropractic research results for a variety of conditions. Also, here's another page with even more research. Some of this research is from JVSR, some is from New England Journal of Medicine, some is from JMPT, and even some is from the NIH. I think after you review just a small portion of these, you'll have to agree that there is, in fact, research supporting chiropractic. Again, whether or not you agree with the research results is irrelevant. The facts remains that this research exists, it is notable, and relevant to the article.
I hope this helps you understand Wikipedia. I'm not here to persuade you about chiropractic, so if it seems as though I am soapboxing a little here, I apologize. You seem like a highly educated, intelligent person and your contribution to Wikipedia would certainly benefit the knowledge-base extraordinarily. I implore you to read up on Wikipedia's editing and linking policies. All of us stumbled around for the first few weeks at Wikipedia, but eventually we got it. I'm sure you're well on your way to becoming a great contributor. Levine2112 20:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Claims that purport results usually require substantiation, what people usually call "evidence." Some people use "double-blind," but I'll accept less. Otherwise assertions are mere "opinion." I continue to insist that the entry under "vertebral subluxation" is nothing more than opinion.
Did you actually read the article you cite from JMPT, the only recognized "scientific" journal that the American Chiropractic Association recognizes? I wonder. Maybe you missed the preface about the article being a "report" from a Chiropractor in Australia who made claims to the World Chiropractic Federation? From the journal:
Abstract Background: The traditional chiropractic vertebral subluxation hypothesis proposes that vertebral misalignment cause illness, disease, or both. This hypothesis remains controversial. Objective: To briefly review and update experimental evidence concerning reflex effects of vertebral subluxations, particularly concerning peripheral nervous system responses to vertebral subluxations. Data source: Information was obtained from chiropractic or, scientific peer-reviewed literature concerning human or animal studies of neural responses to vertebral subluxation, vertebral displacement or movement, or both. Conclusion: Animal models suggest that vertebral displacements end putative vertebral subluxations may modulate activity in group I to IV afferent nerves. However, it is not clear whether these afferent nerves are modulated during normal day-to-day activities of living end, if so, what segmental or whole-body reflex effects they may have. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000;23:101–3)
Did you actually read this? [correct your URL, it's incorrect] "Hypothesis proposes?" A solitary Australian chiropractor experimented on a dog. The results? "MAY" modulate. "NOT CLEAR whether (etc.)" "MAY be NORMAL day-to-day?" And this is evidence for what? Vertebral subluxations? "Vertebral displacements" MAY etc. In a dog? By a lone Australian? Reported as a "personal experience" before the World Chiropractic Congress/Federation, and reported to readers of JMPT as "evidence?" Please tell me, religious skeptic, this is "evidence" of what? Did you miss the myriad caveats and conditionals" Did you miss the dog as subject? This "experiment" meets Wiki's standards for evidence? Really?
NEJM: You claim that the New England Journal of Medicine has demonstrated vertebral subluxations. So where's the reference? Call me skeptical, but you really expect anyone to believe the NEJM actually admits "vertebral subluxations?" I need an URL.
As to the JVSR (Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Review): You cite this "journal." Why? Astrolgers cite their "Journal of Astrological Insight." And the "evidence" is where? Tedd Koren, D.C. is the editor of this journal, who uses it to substantiate his claims on Wiki for "vertebral subluxation." Logicians consider this circularity. Why not Wiki? What if I claim that Mark Spitz is the best swimmer in the world, and "justify" it in my "Mark Spitz Journal?" Skeptics would be skeptical. But for Wiki, it's "evidence?"
My qualifications? None, other than being educated. Educated (B.A. in philosophy from U.C. Berkeley. M.A. in philosophy from Mills College. Minor in biology.) A quack chiropractor for a father. Matriculated at Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, in 1973, leaving promptly after "evidence" still could not be produced. I was an unwilling patient irreversibly harmed by chiropractic adjustments, and WORSE, not allowed to be medically examined TWICE in life-threatening emergencies, "because Innate Intelligence" would heal me. Maybe my irreversible damage is not "evidence" to Wiki, but I live with it every day.
In 1968, I attended a Sid Williams' chiropractic seminar in Atlanta. Williams conducted an experiment (about different chiropractors coming to different conclusions). Williams, a promotion and practice-development hack, praised the chiropractors' for their "differences." "Don't let these differences get you down. You alone have the intuition. Let Innate work through you. It's like prayer: Ask and ye shall receive." Williams founded Life College (GA) and later Life College West (CA). I want my life back; screw "intuition" and "Innate Intelligence."
Medicare (and all other insurance) limits reimbursement of chiropractic services to 12 visits, max. $25/visit. Coverage may drop altogether. Evidence can be had online. But again, that's not the "evidence" Wiki wants. Apparently, the isolated Australian chiropractor's experiment with a dog "proves" vertebral subluxations in humans, despite the article's manifold caveats and conditions.
Last. Chiropractic claims may be "logical," but none of its claims are supported by "evidence" in any normative sense. If you accept a lone Australian chiropractor's experiment with dog(s) in JMPT, who am I to question it. It's obvious, isn't it? You claim to be a proud skeptic of religion, but as a defender of chiropractic, you do have faith!
Further discussion would be futile. I've finished trying to be "rational" with irrational people, much less offer a rebuttal opinion to unsubstantiated claims by chiropractic. You believe "vertebral subluxations" are demonstrated. Who can quarrel with your belief?
Consistency, however, requires Wiki to change its descriptions of "evidence" and "NPOV." That's not faith, that's logic. Since an Australian chiropractor's experiment on a dog meets Wiki's evidentiary threshold, all Wiki readers need to know just "how low the threshold for evidence is." On that, I will be insistent. Peace and God bless.
D.S.H.
Of course I read the article. Just so you know, I did a search for "vertebral subluxation" on JMPT. It was the first of many pieces of research there. You are the one who brought up JMPT and I thought that you would like to learn that they publish research that supports the existence of vertebral subluxation. You said there is no evidence and I merely refuted it by presenting evidence. Did you look at the links that I provided? (Both how to edit properly and the chiropractic research links?) It's too bad that you don't want to be cooperative and have discussions here. As you put it: Further discussion would be futile. Then you go on to call me irrational. Well, we don't take kindly to badgering and insults here at Wikipedia. When trying to add to the knowledgebase, we Wikieditors have found it best to remain civil. Remember, we are not soapboxing for-or-against anything here. We are just posting citable information from notable and relevant sources. Make sense? If you stick to this editing principles (and the other Wiki policies that I have directed you to), arguing over what individual editors believe and don't believe become irrelevant.

~~dshsfca

Irrational is not playing by any rules, or accepting any facts. So yes, you're irrational. All I asked is that you view the JMPT, which you claim you've done. So, what about all the MAYS in the abtract don't you get? I raised it, not you! I simply asked if metaphysical dogmas were going to be represented as fact, at least look at the profession's conditional clauses. How many MAYS will make a "may" true? Will two dozen MAYS make it plausible? I MAY be in your mind, but is THAT a fact? I MAY be out to lunch. Is that a fact? The Boolean Rules of Logic aren't difficult, dude, but hard heads can be inpenetrable (my students now think you're the GWB of Wiki). I'm now using this discourse in my logic courses. If teens get it, why don't you? Sadly, they now distrust Wiki (which was not my intent).

Skepticism is always cool, but not when clueless defenders of hypotheticals don't get their mistakes. At least you've become my foil for explaining MPP. Yes, MPP is difficult, very difficult, because it appears as if it is a dysjunction, when it is a hypothetical. Alas, it is, and always has been, a hypothetical. MAY may have escaped or been accepted by you, but my logic classes understand that MAYS of hypothtical conditions are no different from GWB's hypothetical conditions of special pleadings. Your obtuseness is my foil. Alas, I will no longer accept any footnote from Wiki from my students as a result, and my students know why. HARD HEADS are hard to crack. Alas, they get MPP, because of YOU. At least someone gets it.

As I said, we all have had rocky starts here at Wikipedia. It takes a while for us to get it. This is not a place to shout about what you believe and call people names. This is a collection of verifiable information... not neccessarily fact, just information that is factually veribiable from topical and notable sources.
On a side note, I looked all over the JVSR.com site for Ted Koren, but his name is nowhere to be found - not as one of the peer reviewers, not on the board, and not even on their complete bio list.
By the way, I'm truly sorry that you dad hurt you, but if you're taking it out the entire profession of chiropractic, your anger is grossly misdirected. Think about it. Levine2112 04:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think you're understanding Wikipedia. You just removed "scientific" from the JVSR link. We are adding verifiable information. "Scientific" is part of JVSR offical tagline. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant. Please try your best to understand this concept or refrain from editing. Levine2112 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frustration

This entry of yours is a sorry way to treat an ally. At Wikipedia it can be hard to find likeminded people, and your analysis of the problems in chiropractic (including the mythical vertebral subluxation) are actually quite eloquent and right on the money. I agree with you. But when you start attacking me without my even knowing it (I found out somewhat late that you were referring to me as "referee"), or without even attempting to discuss it with me in a proper and polite manner on my Talk page,.....well, I'm quite disappointed and this makes it hard for me to support you or your edits, EVEN when I agree with them. Now THAT is frustrating!

You have seriously misunderstood a number of things I have written (including the special Wikipedia way of using the word "verified"), and apparently haven't yet learned the meaning of the NPOV policy, which doesn't mean an article doesn't present opinions, on the contrary, it means that ALL opinions are to be presented, just not sold as truth.

If you want to succeed here, stop demanding things and learn to cooperate, even with editors who hold views you loath. You are just one editor, and without the help and support of other editors, you will not succeed in getting your edits preserved. They will just get reverted and changed, and even your ideological allies won't be able to help you. This is a collaborative effort.

I suggest that you contact me by email and you'll find out just who I am and why I'm potentially your biggest ally as a super chiroskeptic! -- Fyslee 19:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFSU

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ckessler 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to San Francisco State University

A number of your recent edits to San Francisco State University have deleted content and added unhelpful, POV content. Such edits could be considered vandalism. Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --skew-t 02:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your contributions to the "Psychiatry" article

Your edits to the psychiatry article have been moved to the talk page of Anti-psychiatry. Anti-psychiatry is the sub article of Psychiatry, and the bulk of controversies and criticisms directed towards this medical specialty are discussed and organized in that article. Per WP:SIZE, "When you split a section from a long article into an independent article, you should leave a short summary of the material that is removed along with a pointer to the independent article." Chupper 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Curious. Your referral to antipsychiatry shows none of my contributions. Nearly 15 footnotes (12 from Ph.D.s in scholarly works by Oxford and Harvard University Press), provided in Chicago of Style format (with Word software), with a complete bibliography (30 works). Perhaps you could point me to where you've hidden it? Since the criticisms stem from (i) natural scientists, (ii) philosophers of mind and science, (iii) psychiatrists at U.C.L.A. and the University of Rome, and (iv) reports of ethical abuse, all cohere into a single conceptual and logical objection, pluralistically explored, perhaps your relocation is misguided. The governing authorities are identified, they are Drs. McGuire and Troisi (both research, teaching, and practicing psychiatrists), which makes their governing critiques neither "anti-psychiatry" in the slightest (categorical mistake), are licensed and practicing doctors of medicine, in the speciality of psychiatry, with wide recognition of their credentials; McGuire is published in 26 peer-reviews texts and journal, Troisi in 7, merely those identified in their bibiolography to Darwinian Psychiatry. How do two eminent psychiatrists qualify as "anti-psychiatry?" They are NOTHING OF THE SORT. Their critiques belong to the main article as mainstream critics of psychiatry by eminent psychiatric professors, researchers, and scientists, and writers. If you want the style done differently than Chicago, please explain WP:SIZE, since "coherence" may not allow redaction to reductionism.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)