User talk:Jim Butler/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Acupuncture 2

Hi Jim, I'm Pursey - fairly new member, primarily revert vandalism and questionable edits. I've been chasing some edits today on the Acupuncture article, and I noticed that you'd also commented on the same edits. (Ie. Recent lengthy unverifiable and POV edits).

I'm also of the opinion that these edits are not neutral and unverifiable. Perhaps we need to push this for a look at by an Administrator? Pursey 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pursey - glad you're keeping an eye on the article. Since the editor is new to WP, I'm hopeful that we can work stuff out w/ him by being extra patient and civil (cf. WP:BITE). best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems to have worked out well :) Nice set of writing on the talk page by the way, fantastic and interesting discussion. I'm damn sure we'll run into each other again, because once I actually get more involved in content editing, I'll be hitting some articles you may have some form of interest in. Most notably, Autism and Asperger Syndrome, and probably quite a few other Medical and Science topics. Pursey 08:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the kind encouragement, and look forward to seeing you around! My homepage (linked from my user page) has a bunch of Autism-related stuff. peace, Jim Butler(talk) 01:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I placed a new cochrane review on the acupuncture page for you! -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Great find, Dematt, thank you!! cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 07:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Acupuncture; aspies

Hi Jim. I have replied to your acupuncture comment on my talk page. I see you know quite a bit about autism and AS. My son has AS. He's 18 and getting ready to move from home. He seems to be adapting much better than I had feared. -- Fyslee 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, interesting. That's great that he's adapting relatively well. My son just turned 8 and faces significant challenges with basic things like behavior regulation, self-care and communication (he's almost totally nonverbal, though he can read, point at words, and with some help, type). My father also has AS. It's interesting to compare how autism manifests in their respective cases. Even though most people would consider my father to be "higher-functioning" than my son, there are actually some things my father has a harder time with, e.g. he's more rigid about routine and transitions. It's a fascinating and challenging thing. best, Jim Butler(talk) 05:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Move

Absolutely right with this move. I should have thought of that! Just knew it was out of place in the lead. Thanks for keeping an eye on me;) --Dematt 21:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks and no worries, I figured we'd be on the same page... peace, Jim Butler(talk) 06:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You were missed

December what? I thought it was supposed to be the 11th or something;) Welcome back! --Dematt 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, how goes it Dematt! Yes, highly busy IRL. Which gives me only a limited tolerance for editing too many controversial things... cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 07:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience article

I'll take a look at as soon as the new version of List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts goes up. What, specifically, are your concerns about it? Simões (talk/contribs) 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. I liked your rewrite of scientism and thought you might be able to bring additional clarity, precision and big-picture focus to pseudoscience. There, I'm concerned that the definition given in the lead section isn't sufficiently compliant with NPOV and VER. Depending on who is speaking, a range of meanings exist. I like your "tiering" proposal[1] for List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts; perhaps something similar would be appropriate at pseudoscience itself (as well as the corresponding category). regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You should chime in on Fireplaces proposal on ps list. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim, I was at Simões' talk page to ask him when he is going to close the "comments" process for Martinphi that he started, but I was distracted by a comment from you concerning his 3 tier system for pseudoscience. I see the sense of levels of reliability, but I am concerned about the mixing of something like the Academy of Science list of categories with those of skeptical organizations. The academies are obliged to at least give the perception of a well substantiated decision for categorizing a study as pseudoscience; however, the skeptical community has no such constraint and repeatedly demonstrates a lack of scientific understanding of the studies they categorize.
The categories scheme in Wikipedia seems to be a way of parsing out the world that too easily lends itself to be a club for special interest groups. But if you have to have them, then 2 tiers are fine, but any such list should be based on the same assumptions of critical thinking. Tom Butler 16:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tom; I agree with the current tiering system and that sci-skept groups are not reliable indicators of sci consensus. I also agree that categories on WP are overused and verge on silly, as here. It would probably be more accurate to title the article "list of topics referred to as pseudoscientific", but as long as the article is clear that only the first tier sources are reliables indicators of sci consensus and the second is not, I'm cool with it. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 16:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience list

I wouldn't worry too much about QuackGuru's antics on the list. As bizarre and disruptive as his editing is, his "work" is all going to be wiped out pretty soon, anyway (probably by the end of the week). So let it be his sandbox for now. ;) Simões (talk/contribs) 17:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Special:Contributions/QuackGuru is a fascinating read. Oddly reminiscent of Special:Contributions/KrishnaVindaloo, who was banned for contentious editing of pseudoscience articles. Just a coincidence, I guess. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 20:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This is an odd edit summary from QuackGuru (talk | contribs). "Easy return?" My immediately previous ES said "rm misplaced hard return", referring to the typographical term. QG appears to misinterpret the meaning of "hard return" and is doing a tit-for-tat thing. Charming. Jim Butler(talk) 06:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"good" medicine!

Thanks for fixing up alternative medicine and mostly eliminating the "bad medicine" quotes! --Coppertwig 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; thank you likewise for collaborating on this! I think the new version is much closer to sci consensus about what CAM is[2]... cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a wise word to Dseer

Hi Mr Butler, perhaps you would care to point out to Dseer the error of his ways, personal attacks on me and others, soapboxing, constant off topic commentary , divisive rather than constructive comments,wasting heaps of talk page space to soap box verbosity (perhaps) I have asked him over and again to refrain from this, he may listen to you ,otherwise I think the article will tend to stay in its current mediocre state, thanks [[3]] --Scribe5 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Scribe5, I'll try and smooth things over at Talk. My comments about staying on topic, made at your talk page, apply to us all.  :-) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP

I saw your entry regarding your interest in discriminating among pseudoscience, questionable science, and sig sci minority views per principles 14-18 at recent ArbCom decision on pseudoscience. What's your opinion of Electronic voice phenomenon and how its relationship to science is characterized? --- LuckyLouie 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi LL! I'd never heard about that topic till this moment. From a quick glance at the article, it appears that there is virtually nothing in the way of peer-reviewed stuff in mainstream scientific journals. Given that, my take would be that EVP is properly characterized (and categorized) as pseudoscience. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There was considerable discussion regarding EVP as a psuedoscience. In my opinion, it is. However we have no verifiable sources that pass WP:VER to quote calling it a pseudoscience. Similarly, we have no mainstream scientific opinion to quote regarding the validity of EVP. So the most we have been able to say in the article is that, EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science and its existence remains controversial. -- LuckyLouie 21:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Personally I'm not very attached to the term or category "pseudoscience". I much prefer reasoned discussion of evidence (or lack thereof), which means good NPOV/ATT wording; what you've quoted above is an excellent example. Regarding the ArbCom principles I mentioned, it sure sounds to me like EVP is closer to category 15 or 16 than to 17 or 18 (no peer-review, no proof of even a tiny minority sci view), so there's probably little point in removing the category. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoops. I spoke too soon. There is now a fight goiung on there. --- LuckyLouie 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I made a suggestion on talk[4] as to how to deal with this... like you, I remain hopeful that what will come out of all this is some sort of NPOV/ATT way to deal with minority views that haven't attracted much commentary from mainstream scientists. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jim Croce

i put a source on the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Java7837 (talk • contribs) March 5, 2007.

thanks! I rearranged it a bit per WP:HEAD. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Facilitated Communication References

  • Biklen, D. (1990). Communication unbound: Autism and praxis.Harvard Educational Review, 60, 291-315.
  • Biklen, D. (1992, January). Typing to talk: Facilitated communication.American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology, pp. 15-17.
  • Biklen, D. (1993a).Communication unbound: How facilitated communication is challenging traditional views of autism and ability-disability. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Biklen, D. (1993b). Notes on validation studies of facilitated communication.Facilitated Communication in Maine, 2, 2-4.
  • Biklen, D. (1993c). Questions and answers about facilitated communication.Facilitated Communication Digest, 2, 10-14.
  • Biklen, D., & Schubert, A. (1991). New words: The communication of students with autism.Remedial and Special Education, 12, 46-57.
  • Borthwick, C., Morton, M., Biklen, D., & Crossley, R. (1992). Severe communication impairment, facilitated communication, and disclosures of abuse. In M. Shevin & L. Toutges (Eds.), Facilitated communication: Advanced topics(pp.81-89). Fargo, ND: Friendship Incorporated.
  • Crossley, R. (1992). Getting the words out: Case studies in facilitated communication training.Topics in Language Disorders, 12, 46-59.
  • Crossley, R. (1993). Facilitated communication: Some further thoughts.Communicating Together, 11, 14- 16.
  • Cummins, R. A., & Prior, M. P. (1992). Autism and assisted communication: A response to Biklen.Harvard Educational Review, 62, 228-241
  • Dillon, K. M. (1993). Facilitated communication, autism, ouija. Skeptical Inquirer. 17, 281-287.
  • Duchan, J. F. (1993). Issues raised by facilitated communication for theorizing and research on autism. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 1108- 1119.
  • Green, G. (1993). Response to "What is the balance of proof for or against facilitated communication?"AAMR News & Notes, 6 (3), 5.
  • Green, G. (1994). The quality of the evidence. In H. C. Shane (Ed.), Facilitated communication: The clinical and social phenomenon(pp. 157-225). San Diego: Singular Press.
  • Green, G., & Shane, H. C. (1993). Facilitated communication: The claims vs. the evidence.Harvard Mental Health Letter, 10, 4-5.
  • Green, G., & Shane, H. C. (1994). Science, reason, and facilitated communication.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 151-172.
  • Hudson, A., Melita, B., & Arnold, N. (1993). Assessing the validity of facilitated communication: A case study.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1, 165-173.
  • Jacobson, J. W., & Mulick, J. A. (1992). Speak for yourself, or ... I can't quite put my finger on it!Psychology in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 17, 3-7.
  • Moore, S., Donovan, B., & Hudson, A. (1993). Facilitator-suggested conversational evaluation of facilitated communication.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 541-551.
  • Moore, S., Donovan, B., Hudson, A., Dykstra, J., & Lawrence, J. (1993). Evaluation of facilitated communication: Eight case studies.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 531-539.
  • Mulick, J. A., Jacobson, J. W., & Kobe, R. H. (1992). Anguished silence and helping hands: Miracles in autism with facilitated communication.Skeptical Inquirer, 17, 270-280.
  • Prior, M., & Cummins, R. (1992). Questions about facilitated communication and autism.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22, 331-337.
  • Regal, R. A., Rooney, J. R., & Wandas, T. (1994). Facilitated communication: An experimental evaluation.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 345-355.
  • Simon, E. W., Toll, D. M., & Whitehair, P. M. (in press). A naturalistic approach to the validation of facilitated communication.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
  • Sundberg, M. L. (1993). Selecting a response form for nonverbal persons: Facilitated communication, pointing systems, or sign language?The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 11, 99-116.
  • Thompson, T. (1993). A reign of error: Facilitated communication.Kennedy Center News, 22, 3-5.
  • Vazquez, C. (1994). A multi-task controlled evaluation of facilitated communication.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 369- 379.
  • Wheeler, D. L., Jacobson, J. W., Paglieri, R. A., & Schwartz, A. A. (1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication.Mental Retardation, 31, 49-60
Here are some addtional references for you to read and add to the article if you wish. Thanks. QuackGuru TALK 20:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I've read most of these and I believe some are already cited in the article. I've been meaning to work on it. Thanks for the encouragement. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

John Henry Clarke

I just noticed this line in this article, when reviewing it. Think I was probably wrong to nominate it, though it's really just a super-stub with a bit of filler to make it look bigger:


"Clarke was a leading advocate of anti-Semitism and served as chairman of The Britons from its formation in 1918 until his death"

...Sheesh. And, no, it's not vandalism, as far as I can tell. He really was that odious, that he ran a publishing house for the sole purpose of anti-Semitism.

Methinks, though, that perhaps the Homeopathy is a secondary source of notability. This fellow is a very notable bigot. Adam Cuerden talk 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, extraordinarily bigoted indeed. Even Henry Ford didn't do that. (BTW, I really don't know enough about homeopathy to know how notable anyone in the field besides its founder is...) thx, Jim Butler(talk) 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Had to delete George Vilthoukis - or however you spell him - for copyvio. Think it's worth recreating him? Adam Cuerden talk 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming the stuff on his own page is accurate, he does appear to pass WP:BIO, so I guess a stub. No strong feelings about it. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tier system and Carroll

Seems to be trouble abrew in EVP re: reliable sources and where Carroll fits. Comment? Scroll to end of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#Only_one_bit_of_research_exists

--- LuckyLouie 04:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK[5], FWIW.... cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 08:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

maharishi mahesh yogi

Would appreciate your comments on TimidGuy's argument at MMY article that: "But I believe I'm also characterizing the way Maharishi has presented his teaching and the way that he's perceived by most people. He's presented it as secular and scientific, and most people accept it that way. Most of the media reports present it that way. It's exclusively presented that way in the scientific literature. If there is a body of scholarship that disputes Maharishi's approach, I'm unfamiliar with it. If there is, then it can be referenced in the article. But for the most part, I believe the article should represent the way that Maharishi is viewed by most people." I do not agree that he is generallly seen as secular and scientific, and I think the religious aspect of MMY is well established. My position is that it is reasonable to include concise sourced statements that point out that that MMY can be seen as a religious leader and such claims are made about him, and there is documented controversy over MMY's consistency with what MMY's guru and religious tradition teaches. --Dseer 23:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dseer! I'll have a look as soon as I can. The thought that springs immediately to mind is that if an editor wants to portray MMY (or foo, etc.) as "perceived by most people", the burden lies on that editor to demonstrate (via some reliable source) that such a majority perception indeed exists. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 00:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

homepathy wikiproject draft

Hi Jim, I've noticed you making some reasonable comments on the Homeopathy page. I'm drafting a wikiproject on homeopathy. Are you interested in helping out with the draft before it goes live? Abridged talk 21:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I'm too busy to be significantly involved, but will certainly keep an eye on it. Please feel free to keep me posted on any major developments. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, no problem. TAke care. Abridged talk 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

e: Global warming conspiracy theory

I'll ask a few editors of that article to give some appropriate citations. They must include some refs in that article anyway... Count Iblis 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

here's your official invitation; please join if you have time

You are invited to join the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. Please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Don't delay---the first 25 members will receive this beautfiul toaster  !!!

Abridged talk 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Acupuncture and vagus nerve

Hi Sweetmoose6 - please provide a reliable citation for this topic if you wish to include it. I couldn't find any citation of it at Pubmed. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 07:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; cross-posting here. My concern is that anecdotal reports don't meet WP:ATT. Please see WP:NOTTRUTH. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 07:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that anecdote, agena, the truth, and the media aren't always in sync. I'll try to find that source. I don't mean to disparage accupunture. It is an ancient art, but it is hard to sit on the truth just because (The Baxter Bulletin) won't report it because of who was involved. While I understand anecdote you can look at my history as an editor on wikipedia to know that this is not something I would make up. Administratively I conceed you are correct, though perhaps not beneficially. User:Sweetmoose6
I don't mean to disparage your truthfulness either, but I don't think it's appropriate (or consistent with WP policy) to include unsourced, extreme claims about any medical procedure's safety or risks. Local newspapers aren't exactly the best sources for scientific and medical topics, either. Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 23:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Then I owe you an apology. You're correct about the source issue as I have already stated. I assume when a source is found you will have no problem with its inclusion. But as to motivation, there are millions of unsourced statements and anecdotes on Wikipedia (although you are again correct that they are against the policy etc., should be corrected). It was just curious that an accupuncturist was so quick to remove a potentially very negative story about a serious problem that occured as the result of an accupuncture. I honestly apologize if that inference was incorrect. The purpose was to put the story out there so a source could be found where I have not been able to do so. This type of event has occured before in other places, so it is not an extreme medical claim. User:Sweetmoose6
It was never my intention to pick a fight, but I do wish the story could be included with a citation needed template in order to enlist help. Again, I apologize if I made you upset, that was not the purpose but it does raise red flags when things are deleted by people who may have a financial interest in seeing them deleted. But I didn't say anything that wasn't already included on your user page. So please accept the apology. I would be fine if another user would decide whether or not to put it out there and then we will not have to argue about it. User:Sweetmoose6
Thanks, apology accepted. The place to enlist help with sourcing is on article talk pages, cf. 2nd para of Wp:v#Burden_of_evidence. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Barrett has criticized numerous topics"

Even better! Pretty much avoids all the concerns we've been discussing in User_talk:Shot_info#Is_it_just_quackery.3F. Good job! --Ronz 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor quibble, should it be English spelling or American in articlespace (I can never remember)? Shot info 01:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz. Shot info, apparently either spelling is OK. Any colour you like!  ;-) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 02:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Scientific acupuncture

I saw you've done a lot of work at acupuncture, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new article at scientific acupuncture which is up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific acupuncture. Perhaps you have an opinion, or know someone who can better assess the article and inform the discussion. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 04:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for bringing that fork to my attention. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

homeopathy

Surely the NPOV "attempts to" would be for the use of cure not treat. They do treat don't they? Treat is just an action. David D. (Talk) 17:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Otherwise "effective" and "ineffective" wouldn't be adjectives used with the noun. Will self-rv that part. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 17:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, someone beat me to it, and improved it to boot[6]. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Even better :) David D. (Talk) 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Horrible

You must think I'm a really horrible ass if you think I advocated the use of the methods that Tom Butler describes on his page. Please respond on my page- thanks. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(responding here as well) I've struck the comments I made to that effect[7]. I was wrong. I overreacted to this edit and assumed bad faith on your part. Please accept my apologies. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology and striking that(: Yes, you're correct that I might get banned for my stand on NPOV. It is against the opinions of many, though not all of the other editors. But I think that NPOV and ATT are too important to give up on them because others say so. We have a responsibility to all the people who come here for real information. And I just can't see how the interpretations such as Seraphimblade's (and that is the way many articles are written) are actually obeying the rules. If I'm actually mistaken, or if majority rule makes it through ArbCom, I'll of course desist. And I probably would never have fact-tagged those edits, but once they'd been tagged by Davkal, I thought that people fighting over it and refusing to source it just showed that they wanted to simply get their OR and POV into the article. So I upheld Davkal's tagging- after all, he had a point. Hope this explains things a little better, as to where I'm coming from. It's basically a moral stand not to let a basic principle like NPOV be overtaken by majority (no offense but mob) rule. Even if they get me banned. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 17:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Martinphi -- the thing is, consensus is also on official policy. It's how editors figure out how to apply NPOV and ATT. See WP:CON#Consensus_vs._other_policies, which talks about how this works, and what to do if you find yourself outnumbered. If I disagree with other editors' take on NPOV a/o ATT, I'm not going to get very far by just insisting I'm right and they're wrong. Does that make sense?
Regarding that diff, I felt that the tagged stuff was an accurate depiction of how scientific consensus emerges, but no big deal since it's gone now. Again, sorry I misread your intentions. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 06:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been and am open to considering I'm wrong about things. Still, the interpretation of other editors seems to be things like "if science hasn't considered it, science has rejected it," and so I just don't see how I can accept things like that. We have a very special case in the paranormal articles, in that they just invite emotional editing, and that skeptics -for lack of a word which means that a person just dislikes anything that smacks of superstition or paranormal- have a large majority which power-blocks the articles. They don't seem to listen to reason- or at least not any reason I'm capable of recognizing as such. In the words of your link,
"At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate what appears to be support for a version of the article that is actually inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."
I just can't say it better. If anyone can explain how the definition of Notability_versus_correctness as "not considered = rejected" is right, or how parapsychology, with all its credentials is not a scientific field, or how the ideas of a scientist in one field are really relevant to the information in another field.... well, I can't imagine, but I love surprises that revolutionize my way of thinking. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% that "not proven" is not the same as "agreed to be pseudoscientific". That's an issue I've argued for too with regard to other topics. But you won't be able to advance that point if you piss other editors off excessively. Better to disengage or do other WP:DR things than edit war. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 01:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, interesting stuff at WP:FRINGE; thanks for highlighting that. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Zang Fu theory

Like Smmurphy, I saw that you are an acupuncturist and have significantly contributed to the acupuncture article. If you are interested or have the time, the Zang Fu theory article could use a ton of work. Moreover, I set up so that each organ in the article links out to its own page in the hopes that we can get a satisfactory description of the function of the organs in TCM (they previously linked out to the western notions of the respective organs, which we both know is wildly inappropriate).

If you could help out, or even just expand on one of the organs that would be great. I'm just a Qigong student; I'll be digging around the yellow emperor's classic for now, but i'd rather recruit some folks with clinical experience. -134.173.122.72 23:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work and for bringing that to my attention. I strongly support expanding WP in this way. My plate is too full to write a bunch of stuff from scratch, but will support the project as best I'm able. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have accepted a Mediation Cabal case - requested by Levine2112 - to which you are listed as a party. Mediation has commenced at the case talkpage, where you are invited to participate.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email, IRC or my talk page; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality.

Kind regards,

anthony[review]
16:03, Saturday June 14, 2008 (UTC)

Note that your (and Levine2112's) comments have been removed, replaced with notices requesting specific information in a specific format. --Ronz 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz, I did see that and commented on it[8]. My time is too valuable to waste playing arbitrary games like that. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, good points, especially considering what we've had to go through just to get to this point. --Ronz 16:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
All the formatting stuff was just deleted and replaced with comments. Does this mean that comments can be given in a normal manner now without templates and reading the hows and whys? This is new to me but it seems overly complex for what we need. --Crohnie 17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, seems that the MedCab editor is now OK with a simpler approach, which is great. Will comment there. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So much for the simple approach. --Ronz 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, indeed. I was going to chime in, but it was getting silly, so I just let it go. I don't think the MedCab approach is going to work here. Regular mediation is probably the way to go and seems inevitable. What do you think? cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 02:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to get the MedCab mediator to discuss it in my emails to him, but he doesn't seem to want to. Yes, I think we need to try another venue. So what's next? The WP:BLP/N and RFC got no response. Would the WP:BLPP or the WP:NPR be of help? --Ronz 04:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I guess so -- probably good to try those before mediation. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 02:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Hi Jim, how's it going? Go to WP:AIV and report the vandal there. They should be able to take action. •Jim62sch• 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you! All well, and I hope likewise. BTW, that world view test that you linked to is pretty cool, even though (or because) I almost "broke" it. More later on that... cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 22:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. --Minderbinder 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Belatedly, thanks! (Computer crashed; was offline awhile.) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 04:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools in North America

I was hoping you had time to chime in here. --Travisthurston 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett talk page

I don't know if you are back from your Wiki break but if you are would you please go there and see if you can help? Things are way out of control and unfortunately anger is on going. Thanks----CrohnieGalTalk/Contribs 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Stephen Barrett.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

re Acupuncture & Plantar Fasciitis

A pleasure to have helped worked on acupuncture, I'll try working up the inline links if i get a chance. Could you though, as an acupunturist, have a look at Plantar Fasciitis and in particular where it states "in which it is not common practice to insert needles directly into the painful area of the plantar fascia". I'm sure that can't be right and instead this was intended to read as "in which it is not uncommon practice to insert needles directly into the painful area of the plantar fascia" or, without the awkward double negative, of "in which it is common practice to insert needles directly into the painful area of the plantar fascia" ... David Ruben Talk 01:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi David -- actually I'm pretty sure that's correct; the sole of the foot is rarely needled because it's so sensitive, and adjacent or distal points would be used instead. But it does need a citation. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 02:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah makes more sense, perhaps needs rephrasing then along lines of "in which needles are not inserted directly into the painful area of the plantar fascia, which is too sensitive, but at adjacent or distal points" ? David Ruben Talk 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great! I'd add a "generally" after the phrase "in which needles". Will try and dig up a cite for this. Thanks much! --Jim Butler(talk) 14:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, added a source and reworded to fit sources[9]. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 02:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for rephrasing. I fixed the citation template (did not seem to work correctly with the newlines in the title's definition), also from a journal rather than just a one-off website, so I switched the template to cite journal; which always seems to give greater credence to a source :-) David Ruben Talk 11:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks very much! Jim Butler(talk) 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Herbalism

Hey Jim, I saw your comments on the talk page for TCM and I was wondering if you could help out with the herbalism article since there are a lot of so-called skeptics that are trying to delete content and create POV while calling the other side simply POV...anyway it's frustrating, but hoping a like minded person could help out. Wiki wiki1 06:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Williams

.. is actually quite friendly to acupuncture[10]. I bought the book ;-) ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

How refreshing to see an editor actually reading and accurately quoting a source!  :-) Much better. I'm still a little uneasy about giving undue weight to any particular individual's opinion in the lead section, but no strong objections. Still busy as ever, hope all good with you, Dematt! best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I am good, glad to see you for sure. No problem if you want to move it down, but figured what was good for the goose was good for the gander ;-) Looks like acupuncture is just continuing to climb the ladder of acceptance. As I find things, I'll drop them off. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Please comment

Your input would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi ScienceApologist 21:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I missed it during an undecalred wikibreak ending 18 Oct. Have been mucho busy. Sorry! Jim Butler(talk) 23:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgiy Starostin

Thanks for adding the Georgiy Starostin article. I welcome all article about young scientist related to systems science. I however find it particulair important to establish the notability of these young scientists. Now I did some research myselve and couldn't find it that fast. Maybe you could take another look at it. - Mdd 11:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi MDD -- appreciate your interest, but not your evident hastiness to delete this article (cf. your recent comments on its talk page, as of today, 23 October). As I said in the edit summary when I re-created the article, I added two refs - Santa Fe Institute, and USA Today -- to cover address the points raised in an earlier deletion review. You seem to be asking for references (like a home page, and academic paper in English), and then moving the bar when they are provided, irrespective of what WP:NOTE and related pages actually have to say. I'll see you at the Talk:Georgiy Starostin. have a better one, Jim Butler(talk) 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I lost my patience. I just can not seem to get a grip on that situation. For specific questions about my moves on that article, you should use the Talk:Georgiy Starostin page.- Mdd 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, no problem! I'm online right now, so please stay tuned and in a few minutes I'll reply there. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Volcano (record).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Volcano (record).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It was orphaned only because another editor mistakenly replaced it with a totally different image that has nothing to do with the album in question. I just reverted[11] Volcano (supergroup) to the version linking to the image, which is the actual cover. And yes, there is a claim of fair use, as a low-res image, e.g. here. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Amanda Baggs

Because someone else put a cleanup tag on the article, right after I finished cleaning it up, most likely because Wiki shouldn't over rely on quotes, since that's very unencyclopedic. The discussion is here. I've unwatched the article because I don't really care; I had just cleaned it up, but if you want another cleanup tag based on too many long quotes in an article, it's no concern to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. If another user has an opinion about over-reliance on quotes, then that user can discuss it (and cite any WP guidelines) at Talk:Amanda Baggs. And, re the discussion you linked to: if your perspective on autism-related articles is that quotes from autistic people in their own articles are "garbage" that should be removed, I could not disagree more strongly. I hope I've misunderstood that aspect of what you said. thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 04:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Medical acupuncture

If you follow my recent edits, you will see what is going on. I don't like edit warring and for the first time in a long time have gotten near 3RR. I have asked John Gohde for sources and am not getting them. For some time now he has been showing his ownership of many articles and a portal, included OR, and used ALL CAPS and bold letters in his many attacks on many editors. John (Mr-Natural-Health) has previously been banned (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health), has a long history of disruption and contentious editing here, and he's doing it all again. If anyone wants to start an RFC/U or ArbCom, I will support it. I just don't have the time or energy to start it myself. He's guilty of all the original charges that got him banned in the first place. -- Fyslee / talk 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Fyslee, great to see you in cyberspace again. I did a little surfing around and am in agreement with all you said, both re the article and the disruptive editor there. For now, maybe an RfC on medical acupuncture, which I just Rv'd. best, Jim Butler(talk) 23:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. You may find this link amusing, re medical acupuncture -- according to the leading exponent of the field, Joseph Helms, they embrace qi just as ardently as any Chinese-trained doc! (Which is fine by me, if they find it helpful in treating patients... it's just ironic given how they talk about being so "scientific" compared to others who practice acu.) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That's an excellent link and couldn't be more relevant, authoritative, or V & RS. It is virtually attack proof, so I have added it here: Medical_acupuncture#Choosing_where_to_needle -- Fyslee / talk 06:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. Well-done on edits there. Busy, but will keep up as much as I can with that and related articles. Merry Christmas, and be kind to those reindeer!  ;-) cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

CAM

This edit was correct, however, please show me where ArbCom has made any ruling on Quackwatch? If there is one, it must be hidden somewhere. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That was here. While I think they were right to caveat Quackwatch (for the reasons I gave at Talk:CAM), I felt that they used the wrong example with the wrong editor. The diff they cited was actually a pretty good example of Quackwatch offering some balance to a fringe topic where better V RS's are unlikely to exist. On the whole, they should have thanked Fyslee for his work on getting good V RS's into the project. I just about blew a gasket when it appeared they were on the verge of banning him (cf. rant here). Glad they came to their senses, if only by one vote.
BTW, much appreciation for your fighting the good fight on stuff like this -- it makes a big difference. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

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/John Gohde 2/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/John Gohde 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch

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/Jim62sch/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/Jim62sch/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)