User talk:Jim Butler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Note: It's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place, so if you leave a message here, I will respond here (unless you specifically request that we continue the discussion elsewhere). Thanks!

notes to myself: formatting, miscellany


I concur with the statements in this box:

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

Wikipedia has a choice: take the approach of Citizendium and adopt "gentle expert oversight" for academic topics, or descend into wikiality and irrelevance except as a source for trivia and popular culture. --Jim Butler (t) 05:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I just want you to know

You are not alone in being "cranky" about the way things have been lately here. I am glad you decided to stay. Your leaving was brought to my attentions while I was away because of illness. I have seen a lot of editors who are upset like you stating almost exactly word for word what you said and have 'retired' do to the problems going on in a lot of articles with some editors lately. I hope to see you around.--CrohnieGalTalk 14:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great to hear that I'm not alone... which means none of us are. I will stick around to the extent I can make it fun, otherwise, it's just not funny anymore (paraphrase of Wavy Gravy). Crohnie, I've appreciated your long history of level-headed and principled edits to highly contentious stuff, and am glad you're editing too. Feel free to give me a shout if things get crazy. All the best, see you around! cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 08:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the nice comments. I have been tracking lately people who are tired and cranky and retiring. The list keeps getting longer which you can find here [1]. So like I said, you are definitely not alone. On another note I notice on your user page a disability site you have listed that is yours. I haven't had a chance to check it out but I do have it bookmarked. I did scan through the topics you have and find it might help me in many ways since I have been disabled since 2000 and my husband just became disabled the middle of last year so I am looking for info and researching our options. I just thought you might want to know. Just try to remember if things get stressful and not 'fun' either find an article that isn't too active and needs some work on it or take a break. Trust me; the controversial sites will be there when you return! :) I try to work on the IBD articles; of course the Crohn's disease article has my main interest. I don't get to edit and research info for the article as much as I would like do to my health but it's pretty quiet there and the editors that do pop in have been quite pleasant, minus to few anon editors who try to vandalize which is usually brief. I am looking for editors that know what Crohn's is to help me make the article people friendly and not so doctorish (is this even a word?! :) ). Don't misunderstand me, the Dr. that wrote there did an excellent job but it's very scientific and medical terms are throughout that the normal readers like me, has a hard time understanding what Crohn's is and so on. So if you are interested....... :) Have a wonderful day and Happy editing, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I do like the emphasis on "happy"... Dematt pointed that out too the other day... good thing to keep in mind. :-) Seriously, I do lose track of it at times, but then, it's just a wiki; Citizendium is probably more reliable for serious matters (and I do have an account there, just haven't jumped in yet). Yes, re fun stuff, there's always something amusing to add on popular music.
I'd wondered, from your name, whether or not you had a connection to Crohn's. I know someone who has Crohn's, and it's pretty intense; flare-ups and remissions and multiple surgeries. All my sincerest support to you, Crohniegal. Medical aspects of disability are especially tough, and fortunately my son isn't medically fragile, although other stuff is challenging (communication is the biggie). I'll have a deeper look at Crohn's disease when I can; looked good at first glance. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

I must say I am impressed by your application of wiki policy regarding the writing of content and civility. I see that you were considering leaving and hope you decide to stay. So often you are a voice of reason. I believe I can learn from editors like you and DeMatt. Anthon01 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask a question about your identity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anthon01, I'm similarly impressed by your balanced and well-informed approach at CAM-related topics. On my identity, I do edit under my real name and link to personal sites from my user page. Feel free to email me if you like. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 08:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked out your user page and found your website Autvocate.com very interesting and as I state above, I plan on taking some time to read the information you provide for people with disabilies since I am trying to research and gain some knowledge on what options my family and I have, so I for one appreciate the time you took to put what you did together for others like myself who are clueless on what options we actually do have available. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Very happy if any of those resources are useful... my experience with disability is as a parent of a child with autism, so most of my page's links reflect the interests of children and adults with lifelong neurodevelopmental disorders, although some are more broadly relevant. The thing about the disabilities community is that any person may join it at any time! Non-disabled people have been referred to by the acronym TABs, for "temporarily able-bodied", which about sums it up. I'll email you off-wiki. all best, Jim Butler(talk) 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies for not responding to your email yet. I haven't been well and real life has had me busy to boot. I did receive your email and have hopes to catch up on my emails as soon as possible. I still have to reread your resourses to absorb what I am reading again but then I will email you back. I hope you understand, Crohn's is a monster and it likes to remind me that it's there! :( I will talk to you soon. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not worry about it at all! I have some idea of what you're dealing with, and you have all my empathy and zero demands. very best, Jim Butler (t) 00:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dana Ullman

I apologise - I thought he was talking about the same study, just hyping it rather more, and he did delete a lot of material at the same time. I think we should trim that paragraph a bit, but... you know. Vanished user talk 09:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, yes, probably could be trimmed... it's late but I'll have a go tomorrow. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 09:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Be aware though, that it is a self-described pilot study, which does mean that it certainly should not be used outside this article. Vanished user talk 09:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes... in general, I'm thinking that we may be able to work out a template for homeo-remedy articles such as Arsenicum album. I like using the "see also" as a way of contextualizing what is clearly a smaller-minority view, but an interesting (subjective) and notable (per WP:N) topic. Also thinking offlinking to the Ioannidis and Lancet meta-analysis material may be good, as opposed to having those exact paragraphs in 15 remedy articles. (Of course, starting with a list is probably better, but some like the present one may need to be spun out into articles per WP:NOTPAPER, and we have to do that in the peoper WP:WEIGHT-ish way.) What think ye? cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to discuss things like the Lancet study and Ioannidis if we're going to discuss small studies, to put them in context. Personally, I'd rather just cut the whole "claims of efficacy" section, keep the quick & light mainstream mention in the opening paragraph, and leave it at that. But I don't think I'll get my way. Vanished user talk 09:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; I am not a big fan of citing individual studies either. But, seriously, you'd include the Ioannidis and Lancet text in a series of 30-40 homeo remedy articles? Is that really what WP:WEIGHT says? There are series of articles on astrology (from various cultures) (please don't AfD rampage them too ;-P) in WP and they don't all devote multiple paragraphs to sci arguments against astrology. Hence:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

What I take that to mean is that we reference the mainstream clearly, but the amount of space in the articles does not have to be proportional to the mainstream. (I'm talking more about citing classical homeo opinion here; agree always need to properly counter-weight, somehow, bogus sciencey claims.) Does that make sense? cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 10:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree completely with that. The trouble is in a case like this, where very small studies were being used to make grand claims, and attempts to avoid the issue by simply not going down that route (e.g. deleting the section) failed. So we have to say something to give them the appropriate weight, when, really, I was completely fine with the nice, short article we had without that, which didn't get distracted by the whole science/pseudoscience war.
You know, this is why I spent so much time advocating for deletion of Homeopathy articles - if we had more editors like you, docboat, Tim Vickers, and a few others, we could expand homeopathy a lot, without problems with undue weight or POV. As it stands, though, a few very vocal users who don't understand NPOV and such make Homeopathy articles very high-maintenance, and we don't have enough people to keep track of all of them. (and I'll e-mail you another problem). As such, I was advocating, for a long time, a reduction in number of articles, to get it down to about the number we could do well, then we could slowly expand back out as the articles we had got to reasonable states.
We're probably nearing the reexpansion state, though one does wish that a little application of the ban stick could be done, so that one wouldn't have to worry about what's happening to minor articles all the time. Vanished user talk 10:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that makes a great deal of sense; I have a much better understanding of the rationale for deletion, and agree re expansion with due WP:WEIGHT. Busy; gotta go right now. Back in a day or two. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jim and Adam...greetings to you both. I personally have a serious problem with that Lancet article. They began with 110 homeopathic and a "matching" 110 allopathic studies. They found 21 high quality homeopathic studies and only 9 high quality allopathic studies, and yet, they never provided any analysis of these high quality studies. Instead, they then only analyzed the LARGEST studies which included 8 homeopathic and 6 allopathic studies, NONE of which were matched in any way. Further 7 of the 8 homeopathic studies gave only 1 homeopathic medicine without any degree of individualized treatment, which means that this study had no external validity to the type of use of homeopathic medicines that is common in clinical practice. I certainly recognize that there are a small number of indications in which one remedy might be effective in the treatment of a specific disease (Oscillo for the flu; Kali bic for COPD), but these are the exception to the rule. These and other critiques of the Shang Lancet article suggest that this is junk science and a mis-use of statistics. The Shang group purposefully left out any study by Reilly (the allergy trials), and they even didn't include the Jacobs study in Pediatrics. The bias was palpable. Dana Ullman Talk 13:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard mention of such things before, but never saw any evidence for the claims made. Can you mention where in the Shang paper it says that that's what was done? Vanished user talk 13:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dana - yes, those do sound like valid criticisms, and Adam is right that they can be included in WP if there is a source stating them. (Maybe you've written as much already, though I'm not sure a blog suffices here, per WP:SELFPUB, but it might.) Also (I think the was mentioned elsewhere) I don't think that the Lancet or Ioannidis articles need to be mentioned in every article or list that WP has on homeopathic remedies, though the general issues of single-study caveats and EBM (representing the same mainstream view we deal with on acuopuncture articles) should be linked as a "see also", per WP:WEIGHT. I really have to take a break for a couple days due to family stuff now. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I polked around - there was a letter by Peter Fisher in the Lancet that said that, but the authors did rather tear the clkaim to pieces in their reply. Maybe in the main Homeopathy article we could discuss the controversy, but it seems rather tempest in a teacup. Vanished user talk 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Arbcom case (maybe)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Vanished user talk 11:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good that you brought the case; even if it's not accepted, it focuses the community's attention on the need to bring some clarity and focus and calmness to article. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Arbcom statement re Homeopathy

I can find nothing whatsoever to disagree with in what you say. Thank you for your great clarity. —Whig (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome... glad if I could be of help. Man, what a rowdy article! cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I also thought your points on the Arsenicum album AfD were extremely well made and correct in my opinion. I'm personally impressed. —Whig (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, the positive feedback is especially nice given my recent reservations about WP. Still leaning toward favoring Citizendium for substantive topics and WP for the popular culture and trivia stuff. Anyway, great to know that trying to do what's right is appreciated. Thank you, and I look forward to learning more about homeopathy as I go along (caveat: I do cycle a lot between activity and inactivity, so some important discussions may fly right by. Feel free to ping me via email if something major is going on). All the best to you, Whig.... Jim Butler(talk) 10:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly Wikipedia can't be everything to everyone, there's a need for other wikis and blogs and everything else that people use for different purposes. I believe in this project and have been here a few years, though my involvement in the homeopathy discussions has been only since early October. I'm still very much in a learning stage myself and appreciate that we now have some experts on the subject able to help the rest of us understand better. I don't follow all of the conversation (who could possibly keep up with it all?) but there are a few editors whose opinions I tend to follow more than others. I very much appreciate and admire editors who can enter starting from a point of non-involvement and bring things rapidly under control as you seem to have accomplished. It's been a frustrating few months but I've always believed that it was possible to get to some resolution in spite of some editors saying it was hopeless. I've never given up on the project, but I've considered the possibility I wouldn't be able to participate. I can understand you thinking it was time to quit, but because you didn't perhaps others also won't. —Whig (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I noticed you have a fair number of edits in Acupuncture. I'm just starting in on learning about this subject as well, and picked up a book today called The Web That Has No Weaver by Ted Kaptchuk. I'm told it's a pretty good introduction. —Whig (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hola Whig -- well, since your kind comments, looks like everything is blowing up again at homeopathy -- must have been the eye of the storm. Re Kaptchuk, yes, it's the best general introduction there is (unless you want to plop down $100 or so and get Giovanni Maciocia's Foundations). TCM is very jargon-heavy and can be hard to assimilate, but Kaptchuk does a great job. I found myself reading small chunks, digesting it for awhile, and then coming back. Probably assimilable in a single weekend only if your intellectual "spleen qi" is exceptionally powerful. Anyway, enjoy, and it would be great to see you over at acupuncture. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite to participate, might be best if I read the book first so I know something about it. I'm really fascinated to consider different perspectives on health and wellness and see no good reason for there to be hostility to these issues on Wikipedia. Certainly they need to be carefully sourced and properly balanced but readers should be able to get a good overview of the subjects by reading the articles here. Sadly that isn't at all the case in Homeopathy right now. No worries, though, the deadline isn't coming up anytime soon. As far as my spleen qi, I've been told it needs some strengthening. :) —Whig (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Water memory

I've tweaked the lead - see what you think.

Nothing hugely controversial, I think, - I just didn't think it was being explained very well, so had a go at clearly explaining the who-what-when-where-why-how. Vanished user talk 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well-done. I tweaked the tense; some still hold to it. I think what we're seeing, beginning with the landmark Lancet meta-analysis, is the beginning of scientific consensus (as opposed to just majority view) on homeopathy. Not quite there, yet, probably because it's harmless except for the vaccine stuff. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] don't know if you saw this ...

...but, Lina's ideas arepretty good. [2] •Jim62sch• 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounded great to me. But oy, the drama at that page! cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Used

I used what you said here (-: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] I have added the following to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion

... that you started regarding the NSF statement about pseudoscience:

  • I don't think this essay was written with much rigor at all, frankly. The definition given for pseudoscience is "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility," as quoted by one author, but then, in the same paragraph, CSICOP is quoted as listing faith healing as a pseudoscience. While I am sure there are some individuals who might claim a scientific basis for faith healing, on the face of it, it is belief, not science, and therefore should not be called pseudoscience (most who practice a similar type of healing with a claimed scientific backing would not be calling it faith healing). This is evidence for a very lax standard of analysis and must be taken into account if one is going to use this quote to represent the NSF's opinion; this is an informal essay giving voice to some sector of the NSF. The definition of pseudoscience starts with "is defined here [emphasis mine]" -- i.e., in this essay -- the author clearly did not want to even appear to be making a policy statement. Friarslantern (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy article probation notification

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. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I do my best to keep everything cool. Anything specific of concern, or are you just leaving a general reminder? regards, Jim Butler (t) 05:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing the pseudoscience category from homeopathy was... provocative. It had been on the article for months. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Have you been following the discussion about the policy and source used to justify the category? There doesn't appear to be consensus that the source suffices. You are aware of the ArbCom ruling? Here's my recent (gently snarky) comment from talk:

For QG and other category-promoters -- Under WP policy at the present time, using the category requires a source. See WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. It's not "obvious pseudoscience" because it's not a tiny-minority absurdity. To say it's "Generally considered pseudoscience" by the scientific community requires an adequate source. Per discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, there doesn't seem to be consensus that the source we have suffices. If policy matters, we shouldn't use the source. If assuaging the feelings of editors and not causing offense is more important, then I guess we should use it. I am sorry if I have offended anyone with my comments and I do not wish to be uncivil. :-)

cheers, Jim Butler (t) 08:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Jim, I don't know if you intended to be snarky or not, but you do realize I was one of the main participants in the arbcomm that caused WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience to be written the way it is? Perhaps you forgot. Anyway, since homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience, it is perfectly reasonable to categorize it as such just like astrology, phrenology, or any number of other pseudosciences. Chiropractic and acupuncture may be debatable, but homeopathy is simply not because its mechanism is so far removed from scientific understanding. It may be reasonable to think that there could be some measurable benefits from someone adjusting a spine or poking someone with needles. It's pretty ridiculous to think that rubbing or drinking small amount of distilled water is responsible for any measurable health benefit. There is nothing scientific about it beyond the placebo effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, SA, I do remember that case, and along with a number of other editors, raised particular issues that the ArbCom quite satisfactorily addressed. It appears that we differ over "verifiability, not truth", i.e., whether it's necessary to source claims about scientific consensus. My preference is to do so for at least two reasons: first, by doing so we "keep pure" the categorization of those topics, such as intelligent design, that are broadly and attributably considered pseudoscience; second, we avoid the appearance of ignoring rules, which may come back to bite us later. Anyway, as I said below, this source, citing the Royal College of Pathologists, provides the necessary statement of consensus from a mainstream body of scientists. regards, Jim Butler (t) 04:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense notifications

You know, I really think we should stop this nonsense with individual notifications, and just notify *everyone* who's edited the talk page in the last month with some neutral template. Because this is going to cause bad blood if we're going to keep having people on the side A notifying people on Side B for minor actions or just to be able to call down wrath of probation on them later. Sure, there are probably cases when it's justified - I hope the one I put up (User:David D. for the record) would count as such - but I was notified by Whig for no apparent reason, you were notified by SA for... fairly minor reasons, and so on. Vanished user talk 08:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. I expect it, since it's such a rowdy article, but yes. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 08:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And now, we finally have a sci-consensus source that lays the categorization issue to rest: In a statement, the Royal College of Pathologists said they were "deeply alarmed" that the regulation of medicine had "moved away from science and clear information for the public". This was suggested at Talk:Homeopathy[3]. Glad that's resolved (I hope). --Jim Butler (t) 07:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been staying on the sidelines for the most part here, but what does this source allow us to say in your opinion? Certainly not that homeopathy is pseudoscience, only that it has been categorized as such by certain groups (including very prominent ones, perhaps). Do you disagree? Does this qualify for "generally considered" pseudoscience? —Whig (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it does. It's a statement from a body of scientists reflecting... consensus. --Jim Butler (t) 07:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Does the Royal College of Pathologists speak for the entire scientific community? How many physicists are members? —Whig (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
To Whig: It was agreed beforehand that a statement from a major body would suffice. It's inappropriate to move the goalposts afterwards. Vanished user talk 07:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what agreement or goalpost Adam's talking about, but I never agreed to suspend NPOV. —Whig (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
(e/c with Adam) Yes, Adam is correct. To clarify, it's virtually impossible to poll all scientists. What is needed is a statement from a mainstream group of scientists that is not self-selected (e.g., 600 signatories to a petition doesn't count, but the California Academy of Sciences does). You're welcome to press the point, but see WP:SNOWBALL. If most people aren't going to go along with it, no point in pushing it. It's Wikipedia, and consensus doesn't always lead to a correct result, which is something that anyone reading WP should bear in mind, statements from august sources notwithstanding. In this case, my own opinion is that sci consensu (not just majority, but consensus, a higher standard) on homeopathy is a work in progress, and the above source is the initial indicator of more that is to come until or if convincing evidence for homeopathy is found. The "skeptics" on WP have been a bit premature in their efforts to depict the stance of the sci community until now, but this source puts us close enough to the threshold that further effort is, imo, a waste of time. best regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree it is hard to poll all scientists, and there will always be dissent even so, but there are clear examples of scientific consensus and they are established by multidisciplinary consensus not by one group of scientists in a particular field like pathology. For instance, there is a scientific consensus on global warming, and global warming denial may be viewed as extremely against that consensus. It should not be easy to say that a consensus exists, and it should not be said on the basis of a restricted group of pathologists that does not include other scientific disciplines. —Whig (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point, Whig, and can only reiterate that it's important to be pragmatic on WP. best regards, Jim Butler (t) 08:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand the need for patience here, and the wrong version may take a long time to fix, but that doesn't mean the consensus overrides NPOV, it never does. —Whig (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that's a common misconception, and in fact "famous last words" around WP; editors very often get blocked for heading down that path. WP:CONSENSUS is as much a bedrock policy as WP:NPOV, WP:VER and the rest. Consensus does not trump NPOV, nor vice versa. Consensus is how we arrive at NPOV. Now you may have a better idea why I'm dubious about WP for academic topics, since most editors are unlikely to possess the needed expertise to make big and little judgment calls. Colbert was right about wikiality: if enough people agree on something, it "becomes true". Sounds psychotic, and it is, at least in theory. All one can do is work with the system where possible, and let it go where it appears most others disagree, or when one decides it's no longer appropriate to enable a dysfunctional system. --Jim Butler (t) 08:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that is psychotic, and that isn't correct historically. WP:CONSENSUS was always a guideline, NPOV is bedrock. This should be changed back. —Whig (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we can leave it alone, because NPOV remains the fundamental principle and it does override consensus and any other official policy when necessary. —Whig (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) For Whig: WP:CONSENSUS is indeed a policy, and states:

When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which consensus can agree upon.

Also see WP:5, which says that WP's "code of conduct" (including consensus) is as much a bedrock policy as NPOV. Agree with you that changing "the wrong version" can take time, but in practice that amount of time will be infinite if one can't get others to go along. regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree with what you say but if you go back a few hundred revisions on WP:CONSENSUS you will see that it was a guideline originally. It has been elevated to policy, but NPOV was policy before Wikipedia began. No point arguing over it, and I do not discount the importance of consensus -- it is official policy -- but NPOV is non-negotiable. —Whig (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it has been my experience that consensus changes. NPOV never does. When the consensus is wrong, I seek to change it, but will not compromise NPOV. —Whig (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning!

I've been banned for 1 week from that page for supporting the same position on the Homeopathy talk page. Anthon01 (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

We are in the mist of censorship. Anthon01 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please check this. [4] Anthon01 (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You got banned over talk page edits? Did you call someone an asshole or something?? Or just get caught up in the mobocracy consensus of other helpful editors and admins? regards, Jim Butler (t) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK, so you were de-blocked. Right? Or is it still in effect? If so, ask an admin to fix it. Sorry you went through that, but IMO it just reflects inherent flaws in WP. regards, Jim Butler (t) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like I am being asked to censor myself. I did nothing wrong except say "Since consensus doesn't exist, lets remove the category. Why rehash the last weekends discussions. There is no RS the properly supports the inclusion of either the box or the category, as per Art and Jim Butler's comments. Those who favor inclusion, can review Archive26 and look for a source that supports the inclusion. Opinions alone don't cut it. According to WP policy and the extensive discussions already had lets take both of them out until we can find an appropriate source and move on.'" I am very civil. I am learning quite a civics lesson today. Anthon01 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't blocked. I was banned from the homeopathy talk and article page. Anthon01 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I get it; brain not functioning good today. You were blocked for the above quote? Holy shit. That's ridiculous. --Jim Butler (t) 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank the brainiac who took it to WP:AN/I. •Jim62sch•dissera! 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I now see there has been more than one posting to AN/I. Without prejudice, this affirms my conviction that disengaging is always a good call. --Jim Butler (t) 02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, way too much bansticking; this is over the top. Chill pills... little sugar ones... --Jim Butler (t) 03:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
And things are cool now. --Jim Butler (t) 06:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cerebral atrophy

I prefer cerebral necropathy for myself. :) •Jim62sch•dissera! 01:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ROFL. I just saw your example of chaos. I think I'm gonna bust a gut! Anthon01 (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep. The solute-signal is being drowned out by the solvent-noise. --Jim Butler (t) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
But it sounds so...danged irreversible. (Have you heard this one?) ... lurching onwerd... Jim Butler (t) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Shortcut

In my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. WP:PSCI Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! My fingertips were getting very weary of typing that. :-) cheers, Jim Butler (t) 03:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] forked material

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=189391448 Time: 01:37, 6 February 2008

I deleted the tagged orignal research and the POV material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_inquiries_into_chiropractic_care&diff=next&oldid=189335743 Time: 01:15, 6 February 2008

Levine2112 then went to the talk page of the new article and commented about POV Forks. He was fully aware of the POV fork policy.

There was a discussion for the new article and consensus was achieved. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Too_long.21

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_inquiries_into_chiropractic_care&diff=prev&oldid=189411284 Time: 02:27, 6 February 2008

However, Levine2112 forked/disputed material to another article without discussion or an edit summary. This goes against Wikipedia policy and by extention may also be in violation of the probation.

See Wikipedia:Content forking: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies.

Your edit went against Wikipedia policy. Regards, Quack Guru 05:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I took the time to read all your diffs and links. Your argument boils down to: 1. You deleted the material at Chiropractic. 2. Therefore, it's a violation of Wikipedia policy for Levine or I to put it in another article. That makes no sense whatsoever. As for the homeopathy "probation", that argument is already being used (per Adam above) in silly ways; extending it to chiro is a good example of jumping the shark. --Jim Butler (t) 05:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
A content fork is forking a disputed content (NPOV violations/original research) against consensus to another article. Quack Guru 05:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Who else is disputing it besides you, and why do you dispute it? Explain specifically what's wrong with the edit. Looks like a good citation of a V RS to me. --Jim Butler (t) 05:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=177889212 It has weight problems to have a whole section for WebMD and it contains original research/POV launguage. Please explain how the reference is reliable. It may not be reliable to use WebMD. Do you think Citizendium can be used on Wikipedia as a reference. Quack Guru 06:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Re WebMD: Since Lundberg is involved and gives it his blessing, I think we can safely say it's a V RS, particularly since it cites journal article (which, per Arthur, is even better for us to use). Maybe the language should be tweaked (although it appears to stick close to the source), but by no means should it be deleted. Given Lundberg, I don't think there are any weight problems with having its own section, though here it would be better to organize the sections by topic, not source. (An exception could be if some source had really amazing weight, like a sci-consensus statement, but we don't have that here.)
Re Citizendium: it isn't mentioned in the diff, so it's irrelevant to the edit we are discussing. In general, though, I'd tend to say that their approved articles are, since CZ's criteria for editors are comparable to accepted in-print tertiary sources. regards, Jim Butler (t) 07:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing significant about an article at WebMD. An entire section on it is POV. Further, WebMD does not promote chiro adjustments. Note. The CZ is relevant to the article. Quack Guru 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how your argument doesn't apply to a section devoted to any V RS. Why not reorg the article by topic rather than source? And leave it in, because it is a V RS. At least, depending on what the title of the article is today. ;-P -- Jim Butler (t) 03:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The whole section was POV. Now it has been rewritten. I think the Citizendium reference should be restored. Thoughts. Quack Guru 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. What was CZ cited for? --Jim Butler (t) 03:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It can be used for the first sentence or second sentence. Quack Guru 05:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think you fixed it by adding Ullman quote.

We shall see what happens next but your edits there were a nice touch in my book. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! The IP's are getting a bit out of hand; I asked an admin to semi-protect the page so that only registered users can edit (it's incredibly simple to register, of course, so all this does is minimize the drive-by's, which for BLP is highly desirable). Still stuff to fix, especially the 20/20 stuff; right now it's spun so as to slime Dana, who got caught up in what looks like a media bias hit job. The "replication" study isn't peer-reviewed and isn't even clearly a legit replication. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 08:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jim. Just wanted to say I still think you're doing a great job. —Whig (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] art prob guidelines

I agree with you, but let's codify it. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This probation business is giving too many editors itchy trigger fingers with no objective foundation. (I agree with Vanished user's comments here). --Jim Butler (t) 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's get started then. I set up User:Jim62sch/article_probation_guidelines for it. My typing skills are abyssmal now as my right wrist is broken, so it might be good if you did the set-up. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OWWW! Sending you healing wishes encoded on a special Akashic carrier wave (you'll know, at a deep psychic level, when you receive them; they're travel at a special sub-tachyonic speed through the luminiferous aether). More seriously, there are good anecdotes about this stuff, which is a modification of the herbs used in classical martial arts academies when the monks would beat each other up and then help get better (sounds kinky to me). Oh, yes, and.... see you at that page.  :-) cheers, Jim Butler (t) 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point I'll take almost anything to return my thumb from a turkey drumstick to a thumb (it was a distal radius fracture with evulsion). (Just don't tell anyone :). •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, see what happens when somebody crosses the picketline. Anybody else need a visit??? (Thats a joke in case those who-should-know-better don't get it...like so much :-) Shot info (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Took me a minute, but that cracked me up (figuratively). Me catch on eventually. "George, I didn't mean no harm...." --Jim Butler (t) 07:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Where's the rabbit, George ...? •Jim62sch•dissera! 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"Thumbthing in the way she moves..." --Jim Butler (t) 03:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that was bad. •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:26, 13 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 19:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acupuncture

Just in case you were feeling bogged down or isolated on this article (or in general), I would like to state for the record that it is editors like you who make the encyclopedia worthwhile, and you are high on my list of editors with whom I prefer to collaborate. I am not at this point sure if I want to jump in on this particular shout-fest - would you let me know if an extra voice of reason is particularly needful? Personal convictions and feelings on subject matter really should not interfere with creating and maintaining a quality article. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Remember, I came over to edit the article with a stick up my butt that acupuncture was just cruft. We still need to clean some of the excessive claims in there, but I when I was reviewing the references and citations, I was pleasantly surprised. McReady keeps complaining that I can't read, because I'm obviously misinterpreting the citations, but I think he's wrong. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Same here for you guys... WP needs to get its act together and cherish its experts, but in the meantime, we can at least pick our battles and mutually support good editors. OM, please do stick around (double pun, haha) at acupuncture, and Eldereft, please feel free to join in... compared to other altmed articles it's like a Zen garden! To Mccready's credit, he seems to be taking to heart recent constructive criticism on his talk page, so let's accentuate the positive; he is a very bright guy and his biases should not be a big deal as long as he is cool with the consensus concept. The one thing I wish he'd do is add stuff in the right place in article subsections rather than just putting brand new stuff in the lead. But I'm gonna consciously choose to be religious here. It's a brand new morning and we're all gonna work together and it will be beautiful and free.  ;-) cheers, Jim Butler (t) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Soma? •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, even the Alpha's enjoy having their muscles relaxed.  ;-) --Jim Butler (t) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I was really into that book for awhile, and just had a look at this section: Brave New World: Comparisons with George Orwell's 1984. Quoting Neil Postman:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Whoa. Huxley frickin' nailed it. Total-ass postmodern infotainment overload pass-the-prozac mediocracy singularity soup. Not to mention what happens when peer review is absent. Crikey! --Jim Butler (t) 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer my orange soma
Huxley nailed many a thing, perhaps why he's one of my three favourite authors (along with riverrun past adam and eve's and when we gettin' the rabbit, George). The crap that passes for info these days is information in only the broadest sense of the word, and knowledge in no sense of the word. But why should knowledge matter when I can watch Lost, or Survivor, or American Idol? Look at the pretty colours, listen to the angst, imbibe the drama, ahhhhhhhhhh... •Jim62sch•dissera! 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I missed the link to Vonnegut -- he rocked too. Anyway, seems regression to the mean might be a suitable means of reaching equality. After all, Dubya got in twice because he was just as dumb as the average American voter. •Jim62sch•dissera! 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Great stuff... while I'm not sufficiently well-read to be able to state reliable opinions on favorites, I'd have to agree those guys are top-tier; Vonnegut is the one I've read the most (and his son Mark also penned some great stuff). And John Irving is pretty astute... after a few weeks in India I picked up this one for a little hit of Western culture.
I have yet to ford riverrun other than Portrait. To the extend I've dipped my foot in, it seems Joyce took the English language to lucid-dreamlike limits that have not been surpassed. It's probably true that great fiction says at least as much as great philosophy... all best, Jim Butler (t) 22:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I kind of like Lost. It's a good strange mystery written and produced by an up and coming talent in science fiction. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool, will check that out. Some good stuff out there, most of which I miss (I rarely watch TV; I have other unproductive time sinks, like web surfing). A friend of mine turned me on to The Office (British version) which I thought was great. --Jim Butler (t) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding this edit

Lots of people write this comment about Quackwatch and ArbComm, but I've looked through ArbComm, and I can't see where they say that precisely. Can you point it out to me? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's here. I don't enjoy citing it since it slimes one of our better editors who got unjustly caught up in wikidrama (ultimately with no sanctions, thank goodness). But I agree that since QW is self-published, proceed with caution. I think it is best used as a counter to fringe claims, and that we should use more mainstream V RS's where they are available (i.e. for well-known CAM's). regards, Jim Butler (t) 22:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
But it utilizes a lot of verifiable references. I use it to dig up those references, since a lot of the authors have published in peer-reviewed journals. It's a matter of laziness. We need to provide rock-solid verified citations so that the anti-science POV-warriors keep quiet. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly right. We basically have to stake out the high ground with the best sources possible. --Jim Butler (t) 00:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
But you do realize, the anti-science POV-warriors just use garbage refe[rences and then work tendentiously to get their way. Take a look at Rue if you're bored. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree re sourcing; we should be able to note that sources are poor or absent in such articles, and doing so shouldn't be considered "OR". Re Rue, definitely agree re editing with a NEDPOV (Not Encouraging Death), but I'm honestly a lot more worried about the uses of the stuff undiluted. I just can't get that worked up over homeopathy, which (absent discouraging people to use biomedicine where indicated) is, worst case, about the most gentle folly imaginable. For another example of lacking NEDPOV, see lithium orotate. all best, Jim Butler (t) 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. re homeopathy, I do think it's OK to include a single line about it in articles about salt, eye of newt, cow dung, or whatever else homeopathic remedies are made from. Same idea as having a see also for Planets_in_astrology#Pluto in the main article on Pluto. It's just a thing people do, and is notable, even if scientists don't buy it. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The (in)famous Shang "comparison of homeopathic and conventional medical studies

Jim, I left an above conversation without conclusion, and YOU need to know this. In reference to the discussion above under my own name [5]. Adam C (god rest his soul) surprisingly didn't know the facts of the Shang article. The critique that I gave above was precisely what happened and is indisputeable. Surprisingly, it seems that Adam C never read the article. If you want to see a great published critique of the Shang article, see what Dr. Peter Fisher wrote (Fisher is the editor of the leading academic journal in homeopathy called "Homeopathy"; he's the medical director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital): [6]. The Lancet also published several similar critiques; just one was by Jonas and Linde [7]. The implications of this "study" having no external validity are significant. The other interesting news is that some researcher have completed a comparison of the 21 "high quality" homeopathic studies and the 9 conventional ones, and this information was reported at one of the Ernst conferences at Exeter; it was reported in Ernst's journal [Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB (2006) What a difference a trial makes. FACT, Supplement 1, 28-29.] and it will soon be published in a leading scientific research journal. This is significant. Dana Ullman Talk 05:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Would the Linde & Jonas letter you refer to be the one in which, in addition to criticism of Shang et al (and rather more strongly expressed criticism of the accompanying editorial) they also expressed regret that their own work had been "misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven"? Brunton (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Linde and Jonas correctly assert that homeopathy as a system of medicine is not "proven." Big deal, especially in the light of the fact that proving an entire system is a very significant undertaking (and may not ever be possible, depending on how one defines "proven"). I don't have that letter in front of me now, but I do have another letter that Jonas coauthored with Walach and Lewith in the same issue of the Lancet, in which they assert: "They (Shang, et al) suggest that, for homoeopathy, this observation is a mortal blow because the combined odds ratios of the largest homoeopathy trials converge to zero. We believe that there are some flaws in this argument. First, the argument hinges on the fact that the studies chosen are representative of homoeopathy in practice and therefore externally valid. As far as we are aware, none of the studies assesses individualised classic homoeopathy, as commonly practised in the UK and Europe." Here's Jonas emphasizes that I have previously asserted and that the Shang work lacked external validity. This flaw is not a minor flaw. DanaUllmanTalk 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the head's up. Will have a look if/when I have the time. Am taking a more or less wikibreak for awhile. --Jim Butler (t) 19:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expert tag

I noted your addition of a tag calling for the attention of a subject-matter expert for the criticism section of the I Ching article. This is a very interesting request, and I certainly support it. As you will note from the article, there is some tension between the traditional and modernist views of the I Ching and there is also the complicated interplay between "Official views" and the attitudes of the people. In Iwanafish's reaction, you see one of these skeins.

Throughout its long history, the I Ching has been variously revered as ancient wisdom and denounced as witchcraft. The views of Western experts of the past century (e.g., Willhelm, Needham) have reflected these diverse viewpoints, and the modernists and their antagonists continue to do so today. The concept, introduced by Wilhelm, that the I Ching was brilliant philosophical teaching is not a view that had ever emerged in China. Thus there is tension between Chinese attitudes and those of Westerners who have encountered Wilhelm's translation. Nevertheless, the I Ching has both Taoist and Confucian influences and connections and can thus safely be said to contain important elements of Chinese culture.

As the principal editor of the article (i.e., the one with the most edits, by far) [8], I have tried to work with all those who have come to the article. The relatively recent advent of the POVs of Iwanafish and Mccready has been a challenge, to say the least. Your efforts to keep it rational are much appreciated. Sunray (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on this and acupuncture during my wikibreak and comment if things get out of hand. best, Jim Butler (t) 19:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acupuncture (2)

As an acupuncturist, do you have an opinion on the existence of meridians? I have come across some reputable research that claims they do. Anthon01 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Anthon01 - I think they're useful in clinical practice, and therefore have functional reality (some moreso than others; same with acupoints). The underlying structural reality varies. For example, needling Sp 6 (san yin jiao, one hand's breadth above the medial anklebone, between the tibia and Achilles tendon) will often result in a de qi sensation felt electrically on the sole of the foot; that has to be a nerve. OTOH, the "Bonghan ducts" (cf acu article) sound like BS to me. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Baggs

There has recently been some problems with the Amanda Baggs article. People have been adding poorly sourced information that violates WP:BLP, as well as non-notable external links. The material on the main article has been reverted, but I am concerned that some of the material on the talk page might not be acceptable either, and from what I understand, Wikipedia's policy is to remove potentially damaging material from talk pages as well when it is not relavent to the intended purpose of the talk pages. I am more concerned about more recent additions to the talk page (which towards the bottom of the talk page). However, I wasn't sure if any of the content on the talk page should be removed or not. What do you think? Q0 (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up, Q0. It looks like since you left this message another editor removed at least some of the objectionable material on the talk page. Agree re the poorly-sourced material not belonging in the article. I left a couple of comments there as well. best regards, Jim Butler (t) 01:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I added two of your comments as evidence on arbitration case

I make you aware that I added your comments to the arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#always_placing_the_burden_of_proof_on_the_other_side_for_negative_statements_on_their_POV_.28many_editors.29 --Enric Naval (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In case I didn't make it clear at the arbitration case, I don't have anything personal against you, and I don't remember interacting with you or reading anything written by you before today.
I suggest that you read WP:BURDEN, specially "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references" and realize that in an article on probation you need to ask on the talk page before removing an article of one of the two categories that it's in. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(and, in case, you were wondering, yeah, I misinterpreted myself the very first sentence of WP:BURDEN when writing the evidence, and I had to correct myself and reword my comment) --Enric Naval (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not all you misinterpreted. --Jim Butler (t) 06:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to point any specific misinterpretations that you think I have done. I will correct the evidence and apologize adequately if I agree with your assessment. (Notice that I'm going away from the computer now, so I won't be able to answer until tomorrow). Also, feel free to ask to veteran editors about my actions and ask them for advice on how to respond --Enric Naval (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
(the evidence page is going to be closed on a day or two, but I can still post the corrections on the talk page for arbitrators to see them. You can also post yourself your concerns on the evidence talk page so that they are seen before the evidence page is closed, actually, I think that it's the best thing and you should do this) --Enric Naval (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to waste my time with that. Your actions are transparently silly enough that I have nothing more to add beyond what I've posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Jim_Butler (diff). --Jim Butler (t) 07:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, as you like. Sorry if I sounded condescendent on my comment above, but I didn't know at the time of writing it that you were already familiar with arbitration cases. Notice that I have made a new section based on your evidence. You might want to contest it on your evidence section. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You called me "concern troll" because of this sort of statements? :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I used that term because I think that your complaints about my edits are making a big deal over nothing. "Concern troll" isn't really the right term, though, because I think you're sincere, just misguided. You're still missing several critical points about what editors have and haven't said, and what constitutes a sci-consensus source. More at the RfArb later. --Jim Butler (t) 07:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I mention you again on evidence [9] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

again [10] --Enric Naval (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
What would Pope say? --Jim Butler (t) 01:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, I hope I've been clear that my concerns about documenting scientific opinion on homeopathy have revolved around verifiability, not truth. To the extent that I have not been clear, maybe it appeared I was POV-pushing. However, I have no POV on homeopathy other than mildly interested skepticism -- if it were real, wouldn't that be something, eh, but I'm not holding my breath. regards, Jim Butler (t) 03:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It's ok, you have a whole evidence section to explain your opinion on the matter. I'm just presenting the evidence that I think that the arbitrators need to reach a conclusion, and explaining what I think that the evidence shows. The final decision is done by the arbitrators, not by us. I just added more about your last edits [11] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
About your question[12]. I have addressed your concerns. About ArbCom, I think that the evidence is necessary to document for the case a behaviour that I think that damages wikipedia by wasting editor's time. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've made these sorts of observations (about WP:BURDEN and WP:PSCI etc.) before, and have been able to work stuff out via normal WP:DR without making an ArbCom case of it. Nor do I drag stuff out, cf. WP:SNOWBALL. IMO, it's you who is wasting time: mine, and ArbCom's. You're free to do that if you like, but I will continue to voice my disagreement, as I'm equally free to do. --Jim Butler (t) 18:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about wasting their time. Arbitrators will probably just refactor any evidence that they feel that is not appropiate for the case or that is making them lose their time. They may even refactor it anyways, since I'm already above the 1000 words limit.
P.D.: I wrote above paragraph before writing my answer on water memory[13] and on the evidence case[14] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Your ABF and tendency to jump to conclusions are the most intense that I've seen in any editor I've ever interacted with. [15] The fact that you're then posting everything I say as ArbCom evidence only makes it more absurd. You may want to slow down a little and make sure you understand what I'm saying. Make sure you know what I mean before criticizing it and presenting it as misconduct. Not doing so is very poor Wikiquette. Slow down. --Jim Butler (t) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest, but I think I'm doing ok --Enric Naval (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

courtesy warning that I mention you again[16] --Enric Naval (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I also updated the evidence with similar behaviour from other editors because it started to look like "The History of my Frustration with Jim", when I am actually interested on showing generalized problems with several editors[17] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's inappropriate for you to use the ArbCom evidence page as a diary for your frustrations with an ongoing dialog with another editor (me, in this case). What you should be doing is trying to resolve the issue first on the talk page. Instead, you're posting diffs as soon as I respond to you, without letting the normal WP:DR process work itself out. That's extremely inflammatory on your part, and forks the conversation into two parts, one on the article talk page and one on the ArbCom evidence page. You're not worried about wasting the ArbCom's time? That's quite a bold statement indeed. --Jim Butler (t) 17:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
My edit was trying to correct that "diary" bias on the last sections of evidence that I added, I'll try to make a pair of corrections more to try to kill the bias completely. It appears that you were right on that. I'll let the arbitrators decide themselves if my evidence wastes their time or not.
About the dispute on the infobox, sorry if it's interfering, but I think that the evidence is necessary for the case, since it's a clear example of the behaviours that caused the arb case to happen on the first place --Enric Naval (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Ah, well, you know what, maybe there is already enough evidence already for documenting certain bevaviours, any further evidence would surely be redundant with the already existing one, it's actually forking the conversation, and the discussion on the infobox is making some progresses. I'd rather fail on the safe side, so, in order to not disrupt the discussion at Talk:Water memory and the Water memory article, I promise not to add more evidence from those two pages. That should keep that content dispute out of the arb case. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, but you didn't need to add my comments in the first place; it was entirely unnecessary since we were in the middle of a discussion. Your ABF was mind-blowing. I'm in the midst of refactoring my evidence along the lines of my comments above. On the infobox, guess what? I basically agree with you. It should be fine to have it, within WP:PSCI and common sense (i.e., don't use 10 infoboxes if there are 10 categories -- yes, the same common-sense cautions as for other templates). I just needed some time to think about it and discuss it. Keep that in mind the next time you feel like escalating a dispute from a talk page straight to the ArbCom. --Jim Butler (t) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I made explicit that I don't think that you believe on the existance of a cabal[18]. I thought that this would be clear from your evidence, but when I saw your edit[19] I revised the wording and saw that the context from former paragraph made it look like I included you on the believers. I didn't know how to change the wording, so I just left a note there. Apologies for the confusion that my clumsy wording has caused. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I removed my comments on that topic [20]. --Jim Butler (t) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acupuncture (3)

I'm glad that you've tried to keep up the vigilance on the acupuncture article, in spite of a determined editor to "save the world" from it. MeekMark (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and to you the same! cheers, Jim Butler (t) 07:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

You, a self-confessed acupuncturist, have reverted multiple times on various acupuncture pages, well-sourced research showing that acupuncture has no proven effect. Please do not remove well sourced scientific material. Your preference for listing the tiny number of studies which show acupuncture MAY have an effect, is far outweighed by the evidence showing no effect. Please desist from this style of POV editing. Acupuncture has no proven effect and this needs to be acknowledged. The only, I repeat only, possible exception is P6 for nausea and this is hotly contested as you know. Thus in terms of undue weight your pov defence of acupuncture is entirely unacceptable. Mccready (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:KETTLE re edit-warring, friend Mccready. You've been edit-warring against four or more editors, some of whom are self-identified skeptics. Suggest seeking consensus on talk pages rather than trying, futilely, to reinsert material that others don't believe is appropriate (per WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT etc.). --Jim Butler (t) 07:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Would you please redact or remove the comment about QuackGuru made in this diff?[21] While it may or may not be true, it is inflammatory and unhelpful to the discussion at hand. Thanks for understanding. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right; done. Thank you for the course correction. --Jim Butler (t) 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, sincerely, for your prompt, polite and understanding response to my request. Vassyana (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The situatuon became a lot worse because of the repeated comments on my talk page. QuackGuru 05:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
QuackGuru, that's nonsense. Jim has acted as a model editor and you have brought shame on all skeptics. Period. You should have accepted and heeded the messages on your talk page. Instead you chose to act as you often do and not heed them. -- Fyslee / talk 06:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That's nonsense? No. You have brought shame on all skeptics? No. Your comments is incivil. There was nothing to heed. It was a repeated request. QuackGuru 09:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)