User talk:Travisthurston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived

Contents

[edit] Warning: Conflict of interest

As a naturopathic medical student, you have a vested interest in maintainig a positive outlook on the alternative medicine treatments you will likely one day use in your employ. As such, you need to familiarize yourself with the conflict of interest policy on Wikipedia. In short, I believe it may be in your own best interest to not edit articles with the effect of inserting what you might deem "information" on alt. med. topics. Please consider this a friendly warning. I will also be posting a similar notice to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Travisthurston. Your name has been mentioned here on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. You are welcome to join this discussion and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up point

The additions you are making are adding a very much minority viewpoint to articles about only peripherally related subjects. Per WP:NPOV, extreme minority viewpoints should not be included in every peripherally related article. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, while I'm here, please be careful not to edit war and be careful of the three revert rule. Thanks! JoshuaZ (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with JoshuaZ: you are involved in edit-warring to support a minority POV. Please stop. •Jim62sch• 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have an overall theory of which articles on plants deserve to have homeopathic commentary added, please share it. Many of these are small articles, and per WP:UNDUE it is not clear it is important for their usage by homeopaths to be included. What about their use in Haitian rituals? There needs to be a standard. if you wish, you can propose one. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Not to pile on, but there is little scientific support for your edits. Please utilize reliable sources in the future. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow. thanks for all the help people... I think we all need to get together to discuss what articles should have at least a mention of homeopathic use. Depending on where you live, we all know that countless homeopathic remedies sit on shelves or in medicine cabinets all over the world. Mere mention in an article would not be considered "undue weight" or "conflict of interest". As far as I am concerned I don't think that the indications for use should be mentioned. You won't find many docs who like the idea of people treating themselves based on what they have read online. Especially wikipedia. My official take is I think the "most used" (aka polychrest) remedies should have a brief passage along with their other pharmacologic/biologic/other use. I have no interest in discussing whether or not people think it works or how many controlled trials have been conducted. The simple truth is that people use it, and for that reason alone the information should be mentioned here.--travisthurston+ 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah most real doctors wouldn't take anything from online. But that's not the point. It's the lay people, like yourself, who take what's written here as gospel. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a tactless personal attack to me. But having watched your edits for the last few months I'm not surprised at all.--travisthurston+ 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it would succeed, but why don't you instead consider drafting an article on common homeopathy treatments or something like that? Your expertise might prove informative for people looking for that sort of thing. (Of course, again, there would be balance based on WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE and NPOV). Anyway, just a suggestion. Tparameter (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There is discussion about writing a List of homeopathic remedies article. I would encourage you to work on that. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you were replying to me, (probably not) - but, just in case, I'm not a homeopathy supporter. If you were referring to TT instead, then our comments were directed at the same person. :] Tparameter (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kapiolani Park

Thanks for working on this. I've reformatted the cite and I've added "citations needed" as we still need the inline variety. If you are familiar with the topic, please use the comments link in the talk page header to add criticism. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 07:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat familiar with this area. I will add some more refs as soon as I can get back over to it. Thanks for the heads up. --travisthurston+ 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading to Commons

Hi. I see that you are uploading some wonderful photos to Wikipedia. That's great, but if you upload them to Commons, the entire project (in all languages) can use them. Please consider the benefits. Older photos can be moved, so don't worry about those. —Viriditas | Talk 07:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll upload there from now on... --travisthurston+ 18:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zelihowski on the I'iwi

Hello there, my username is Zelihowski (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)ZelihowskiZelihowski (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC), I am sorry not to put down the sorce of where the I'iwi populations was, but you see I am working on a book and alot of my sorces information got jumbled togeather so was not sure which sorce was right. Here is the correct sorce, http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/dofaw/cwcs/files/NAAT%20final%20CWCS/Chapters/Terrestrial%20Fact%20Sheets/Forest%20Birds/iiwi%20NAAT%20final%20!.pdf. I will pu it on the I'iwi page all right bye.

[edit] Re:

I'm not sure what the problem would be for the redlinks to "go on" for months. Of the three, Clifford Pusey is almost certainly an eventual article target, but regardless, we have an entire project dedicated to writing articles that are repeatedly redlinked to (WP:MWA). Redlinks alert the reader to two things: that a subject they may seek information on does not currently have an article (and so they do not have to run a search for it), and that it may possibly need one; I write articles based on seeing redlinks in existing articles, myself. Chubbles (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:HonaunauBoatHouse.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Travisthurston!
We thank you for uploading Image:HonaunauBoatHouse.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the tag. Thanks! --travisthurston+ 23:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)