User talk:RichardKingCEng
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
|
[edit] Pseudoscience
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Pseudoscience. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Please slow down and make your case on the talk page first.--Filll 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
But it is okay for you to repeatedly revert. I said I accepted that the pseudosceptic writ would, eventually, run on Wikipedia. It is obvious from related subjects.
Why not explain what is pseudoscientific about alternative medicine. There is plenty of scientific research being carried out, a great deal already has been. I have decades of knowledge, experience and qualifications in engineering, technology and science, a Diploma and two Degrees plus fifteen years experience as a Healer, plus involvement with Healers and fully qualified medical professionals. I am a Member of the Scientific and Medical Network (University Degree required for full Membership, at least until very recently). As it happens I have just returned from a Conference in London organised by the National Federation of Spiritual Healers and the Doctor Healer Network, Healing and Spirituality in the 21st Century. A few weeks ago I attended a two day conference, the First British Congress on Medicine and Spirituality; speakers from Europe and South America, all but one with high academic qualifications, most medical people. In between was the Beyond the Brain Conference, to do with consciouness and related matters, obviously. From that overview I see plenty of real science being applied in the alternative, complementary and integrated medicine fields. However, I doubt those conferences will sit very well with the prevailing tone here, despite the qualifactions, academic research, experience and published papers involved.
Many articles in this vein on Wikipeia are poorly researched, apart from the bias. For example, on the human aura I found about fifty related references on the Internet, most research. I was deliberately trying to avoid "opinion sources". Looking at it from an engineering point of view, I wondered if the energy fields of the aura could be represented in tensor form; then found it had been done, the stress energy tensor, and applied with experiments producing correlation with phenomena observed by other means.
The threat approach goes with the usual attitude; no surprise. Disagree with our way too many times and that is it. Which is why a colleague, in whose new book I appear, advised caution in using Wikkipedia for muchin the way of research in non-materialistic areas; essentially, take a look at Wikipedia to get a general idea, maybe, then do the research on the Internet.
I had already concluded that there are some subjects that a Wiki which excludes the pseudosceptic, limited science element. (RichardKingCEng 21:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC))
- I think that there are few things that might help you out. I suggest you read our guideline about assuming good faith with other editors and be careful about not making personal attacks. It may also help to take a look at our standards for reliable sources and our neutral point of view policy. JoshuaZ 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, those links should help. Meanwhile, I apologize, as we all should look to not bite the newbie. Welcome Richard. Just remember that everything here needs to be verified with reliable sources. If you see something that doesn't look right, ask for a reference and then you can check for yourself. If it was improperly cited then you can delete it, but it is always a good idea to talk about it first. See ya around. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: JoshuaZ Comment:
Good faith is one thing, lack of knowledge is quite another. If someone requires standards of proof, references, from one point of view, particularly one very different to their own, then they should apply the same standards to their own contributions.
I made no personal attacks. Pointing out lack of consistency is not a personal attack, though fragile people can take anything but agreemnt with them as an attack.
I only wrote of the general approach to the editing of Wikipeidia as I see it: it is blatantly obvious to anyone with knowledge of the subjects that much of Wikipedia is pseudosceptic POV; the pages about Faith Healing (which is not the same as Healing), the Human Aura, etc. are a joke, with the Psychic page somewhat better thanks toth e efforts of MartinPhi, NealParr and Wikidudeman. References were to the pseudo-sceptic and amateur commnunity involved, not to individuals. The pseodo-sceptics are certainly in attack mode with name calling like "Quacks" and "Woo-woos", to some extent the recent reference on the Pseudoscience Talk Page to "Alties", for those involved in Alternative Therapies, certainly a lack of repect and an immature approach. Outside Wikipedia there is the pseudo-sceptic's "Victor Dammit" Web Site juvenile "skit" on lawyer Victor Zammit's Web Site. (RichardKingCEng 08:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC))
[edit] in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Reiki
[edit] April 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reiki. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Who pulled your chain, Gwernol? I do not appreciate lurid warning symbols being put on my page, let alone by someone who has been warned, on your own discussion page, for disruptive editing and who hides behind a pseudonym. I was not "edit warring", just trying to get someone to abide by the standards of proof that they insist on others providing; someone who professes science but does not appear to have a clue. I was aware of the three revert rule, took it to the limit and left it. Advice is welcome, your approach and tone is not. I would prefer you to stay off my page unless you improve. RichardKingCEng (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Remote viewing
This is to inform you that I have filed a request for informal mediation on the article Remote viewing, and named you as a party. Best, ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
