User talk:2over0/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

X-ray diffraction

Question as to whether SAXS belongs on a list of x-ray diffraction techniques. My physicist friends complain that SAXS and x-ray reflectivity aren't diffraction techniques because the length scale of the radiation (angstroms) is much smaller than the length scale being probed - they would prefer to call SAXS and XRR "x-ray scattering" techniques to differentiate them from conventional XRD techniques, even though they use similar apparatus. Any thoughts? Maybe relegate SAXS and XRR to a "related techniques" section on the main XRD page? Irene Ringworm 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. I'll go ahead and add x-ray reflectivity to the list as well. Irene Ringworm 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Quantum Xyrroid Consciousness Interface

Hello please can you rename Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface to Quantum Xyrroid Consciousness Interface, thank you. Sandman30s 10:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi quite correct it seems Xrroid is the correct spelling. There are a few places that seem to think it's Xyrroid but many more with Xrroid. Odd word. Thanks again. Sandman30s 11:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Psychotherapy

I modified the part you changed.. is it ok? see diff ----Action potential ^{t c} 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks great - more precise and still NPOV. Thank you for all your work on the NLP article. I hope I did not come across as too brusque in the edit summary. Eldereft (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fringe physics

Hi Eldereft - I've appreciated your careful attention to detail at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. A question: do you have physics expertise? I see some topics that I'm not sure belong with Time Cube et. al. under "Idiosyncratic theories", e.g. Electrogravitics, but lack the knowledge to properly evaluate them. Given the ArbCom's criteria, and if we don't have a source labelling them as pseudoscientific, maybe better to move them to something like List of minority-opinion scientific theories? Or a list of outdated theories or something. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Nice talk page conventions above - I may have to swipe 'em. --Jim Butler^(talk) 04:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi JB, I am glad to see that you are not entirely leaving Wikipedia - your level-headed thoroughness is something we need more of for this encyclopedia. My physics expertise consists of editing Wikipedia instead of writing my dissertation, hence being so active lately (meh). Almost certainly not all of those topics belong in the ultra-cranky category. There are only four of the new additions that I even recognized offhand, so I need to sort through the rest and move whatever needs to be up to a pseudophysics category or out to a not-pseudo category. Electrogravitics in particular is problematic since ionocrafts definitely work ... just they have nothing to do with antigravity. I will see what I can do about fixing that up.

And thanks, feel free. :) Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, Eldereft, great those are on your radar. Wishing you full wind in your dissertation-sails! Rock on, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Apllied Kinesiology

Wow, wow and wow. I must say very impressed. I have some changes I would make, but by far it is an excellent treatment. I will comment more in a little while. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your thoughts on AK. Now I will have to reread the neurology chapter (300 pages) out of my copy of the British gray's anatomy. It will take some time but I'm determined. Also, I've corrected the error I made on my talk page regarding your vote on the matter of homeopathy. I believe in now reflects your response in the RS Noticeboard. BTW, no offense is taken by your comments. Conversation is a good thing. Anthon01 (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read and discuss. If you run across anything in your studies that might change my thinking I would be interested to hear it.

And yes, that looks much more accurate now. It is a little bit worrisome that most of the comments seemed to be based on thoughts regarding homeopathy rather than the issue at hand. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

At your suggestion, I posted my comments on the Pseudoscience talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JBFrenchhorn (talk • contribs) 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

i'm embarrassed

"consistently pro-(alleged)pseudosciences editor"? is that really what you think of me? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

meh, sorry - that could have come out better; it is too late to be editing anyway. I meant only to emphasize that the apparent consensus was not a false consensus involving only one "side". I think that you push consistently for rigorous sourcing of claims, and in the articles where we interact that means we can disagree on what is "obviously" good enough. For what it is worth, I wholeheartedly support your recent removal of the non-specific references to the Electroacupuncture according to Voll article. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it! Your contributions to Wikipedia are truly tremendous. Thanks for doing what you're doing and don't stop doing it. (But go to bed now... it's late! :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable sources

Thanks for the heads-up vis a vis your updates to the anthroposophic medicine entry. Looks good except for some sources that do not meet verifiability criteria, as they are self-published websites. Since there were 4 or 5 citations for the one sentence, and two good ones are left, it makes no difference to the article otherwise. Hgilbert (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Please ensure you revert to a good version. You reverted one edit on confirmation bias to another version by the same IP; the 'naming' section has thus been blank for ages (thought someone may have wondered about this, but I am apparently the first to actually look into what happened). Richard001 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, good catch - thank you. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Faith Healing

There are subtle differences. Unity and Divine Science tend to use Christ Mind, Christ Consciousness much more Christian sounding in its verbiage but correlates to Religious Science use of One Mind, Divine Mind. Unity adherents tend to draw more of a distinction between themselves and Divine Science and Religious Science. They both use Affirmative Prayer Religious Science uses a distinctive a five step process, Unity and Divine Science three step. maybe I'm splitting hairs but there are differences. ThanksJGG59 (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am fully in favor of pedantic exacting correctness. Mentioning differences between denominations as relates to faith healing, even hair-splittingly small ones, improves the article. My sole problem was that adding a simple list of New Thought denominations to an already somewhat tortured sentence made for bad writing; without relevant differences between them being mentioned, it did not seem worth reworking the presentation to include it. I would, however, support and defend the addition of what you just told me here (properly explained and sourced, of course). Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Meme

http://drhudson.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlandokork (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This blog does not constitute a reliable source, and should not be cited on Wikipedia. Additionally, the text recently added to Meme constitutes a copyright violation unless the original is published under a license compatible with being copied into Wikipedia. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Meme - AWB

Oh thank you for pointing me out at that mistake. Was my bad. I checked, Destin is a very popular name so I have added exception to AWB spellchecker. TestPilot 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reiki

Nice edits on Reiki. See what you think of my change. ——Martin^phi ? ? ?—— 08:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to move forward in this latest discussion-by-edit-summary. I think that your version understates the level of scientific evidence that "universal life force" has no physical reality, but it is certainly language we can work with. I would also move the 'researchers claim' bits from Teachings to Scientific research. Issues of presentation suggest that discussion of the (non)existence of spiritual energy should be minimized in the Teachings section. Perhaps put two sentences in the lede, one in Teachings, and put the full discussion under Effectiveness?

One further fairly minor point - it feels somewhat disingenuous to say NIH when we mean NCCAM. This actually applies to all of the offices and branches of the several agencies (e.g. National Center for Health Statistics rather than simply CDC). More than just being more pedantically precise, it is actually more accurate - we never say DHHS when we mean NIH. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's sounding good. I didn't see you'd responded before now. If you want to move things around, why not just do it? But it might precipitate edit warring. But if you and I can agree on a version, it should stick. I'd be happy with any statement which doesn't involve editorial judgment- I mean, if we can find sources saying "there is no evidence," then we can attribute to them. And if we could find authoritative and general enough sources, we could probably just make the statement, but we won't on this subject. I think that while strictly accurate, my version makes the point more firmly than ScienceApologist's (: If only he knew that. ——Martin^phi ? ? ?—— 07:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

3O

How can you possibly be thinking of offering a 3O on Talk:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam, when many more than two editors are already involved? Johnfos (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my first thought on reading the talk page (note how long the request has lingered at 3O), but I figured that delisting it and offering an uninvolved opinion would be better than simply delisting it. I plan to start a new section with my thoughts after I finish going through other dams and related articles. If you have any pointers, they would be appreciated. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. The problem is that a 3O at this stage would, I think, devalue the voting and discussion process that has gone on with the page. By all means indicate if you support or oppose the merge as an individual editor, or offer some other input, but to come in and offer a 30 after all that has been said would not be very constructive and in fact would undo a lot of good work. Johnfos (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I will do it that way. Thank you for your advice. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discuss things?

You don'; seem to discuss a damn thing ... just bold removing information! J. D. Redding 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reiki

Here I thought for sure it was a warning that SA had reported me to Arbitration enforcement again, and I get your nice message. Yeah, that was a bad source, but usually those kinds of statements only need a teeny bit of attribution to be acceptable. Keep in touch. ——Martin^phi ? ? ?—— 03:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Thanks! Always wondered what nowiki meant. If they are papers or books only cited once I try and use what you suggest as here Reactive attachment disorder where I was dragged kicking and screaming into proper citations but sometimes I lose the will to live. However, there a couple of books and reports that are cited many times and need page numbers and the only way to do this that I have found is to put a brief citation plus page number into the notes then put the book into the refs. Just as a matter of interest, why is this one on your watchlist? Fainites ^barley 09:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I improved the summary over at List of pseudosciences a while back, but never got around to delving into the main article. It does not necessarily help with citing different page numbers in the same book (which I agree must be done), but I find this tool useful for generating the wikicode for formatting references. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge Acupuncture with Medical acupuncture

I'm too involved in the chiropratic broo haha to devote the proper time and energy to clean up Acu, but see that you've been doing a commendable job. I'm a bit surprised at what I perceive to be an overblown debate; it seems to be effective for MSK pain syndromes and a select # of non NMS (post-chemo nausea, for example). The stuff that has weak evidence should be labelled as "inconclusive". That word passes no judgment either way; there just not enough info to make a strong conclusion. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the latter (time*interest threshold has not yet been met; although I will try this weekend), that sounds like a good idea given the amount of relevant medical information already in acupuncture. Length considerations would probably then require a spin-out for History of acupuncture or Acupuncture in Traditional Chinese Medicine (which would also be a daughter-article of TCM). This would be silly from a precedence point of view - obviously TCM predates modern medicine - but I would lend credence to an assertion that as many or more readers wandering through are interested in the status of applicability and efficacy research than the history and anthropology aspects.

I definitely agree that we need to distinguish between 'insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion' and 'sufficient evidence to draw a negative conclusion'. Really, our readers are not dumb (or at the very least should not be treated as such), and they will be better-served by presentation than by paternalism.

And good luck in the trenches down at chiropractic (or at least, good luck to NPOV - I think we two personally disagree on specific content issues, but as long as we are all talking and being reasonable the articles can be improved). Further, I like those of your suggestions included at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Eldereft. Given your contribs and expertise; it would seem like you're medical physician and I wouldn't mind hearing some of the specific content issues that you would like to see addressed. IRL I work with orthodox physicians (younger one's of my gen, I'm 29) we work perfectly in synch (I'm the NMS doc) and give my 2c on some general health issues from a holistic perspective (i.e. in addition to crestor, making specific dietary changes (omega 3 FAs, solube fibre, etc and designing a quickie aerobic program) to complement (not replace!) their interventions. I hope to see a similar thaw in relations and improved interdisciplinary collaboration here at Wikipedia which is more of less, as of now, being met with severe skepticism and hostility. When I get some fundamental issues dealt with at chiro, I'm going to go and clean up back pain and bring it to FA status. I would appreciate if you would keep some digs when I'm there; hopefully I can bring my expertise to the issue and not have too much obstruction from a small, but influential, amount of die-hard chiropractic skeptics. Thanks for your comments re: User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing, they really come from first hand experience, so I hope that future editors don't have to re-live my tribulations and can have a better experience than I have so far. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Traditional medicine

Considering SMT was practiced by ancient civilizations in both China, Europe and Egypt and notably by Hipprocrates, I didn't think I would be a big deal. Are you looking for a ref? Cheers, CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Acupuncture lead

Hope I wasn't too bold in posting a modification of your proposal, but of course we can always change it. I agree that paring it down is a great improvement. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whew! You have been busy this afternoon. I will be reading through it later, but at first glance I approve. Thank you both for your work and making sure I noticed. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the Bates method crap from Amblyopia. I'm absolutely sick of this sh*t, as you can tell from my last post to Bates method... Famousdog (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I will stand up for WP:UNDUE in a science article any day :). Best of luck with the neutralization effort. It might be worth noticing when the current homeopathy arbitration finally winds its way down, as one of the issues is exactly this sort of trollish POV-pushing of low-quality or non-scientific sources to make objectively false claims about reality. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lazy eye

"Lazy eye" (a total misnomer if ever there was one) refers to amblyopia, not strabismus. However, the two often co-occur (probably a causal relationship), so they are frequently confused. I changed the wording to retain the link to strabismus, but without giving the impression that the two are the same thing. Hope that's okay. Famousdog (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS Reappraisal: Undid this edit of you

[1]

Could you please explain your reasons for your edit at Talk:AIDS_reappraisal#Removal_of_information. Maybe I am missing something. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for linking me with to very useful wikitool just after me reverting your edit :-) Randroide (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reiki

I looked at the diff, and thought it was very well done and a great improvement. I'll look over the article later today and also the source. Good work (: ——Martin^phi ? ? ?—— 18:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be great if there weren't "sides." I guess you're a pretty committed skeptic. But FYI, I didn't do anything different from usual on Reiki. Whenever there is NPOV writing and good science, I'm all for it. It doesn't matter if it is pro or con the subject. It's just there usually isn't that neutrality or any willingness to compromise from the "other side." You are very refreshing (: ——Martin^phi ? ? ?—— 20:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. ——Martin^phi ? ? ?—— 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A sane voice at last.

Dear Eldereft, A sane voice at last. I still maintain using the term "Denialists' is wrong as it is an insult just as the dissident term for 'believers', namely 'apologists' is. Both should not be used in Wikipedia. The image is there to try to smear the dissident position and adds nothing to the discussion. A picture of Duesberg would seem more to the point or none at all. All I am asking is that this article conforms to established Wikipedia policy and is NOT a vehicle for AIDS activists to smear the opposing point of view.Aimulti (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WHAT WAS WRONG WITH MY ORIGINAL EDITS?

AIDS denialism is a loosely connected group of individuals who dispute the scientific consensus that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

I have changed the above which uses a derogatory term to describe a point of view (AIDS dissidents). This is not balanced and impartial coverage of a topic and is in clear breach of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Even the word 'denialism' is a concoction.

AIDS denialism is a term that is considered by those calling for a reappraisal of the currently accepted hypothesis of the cause of the 'disease' as derogatory in nature (as it implies that they are denying that which exists, instead of opposing what they see as a medical blunder).

AND TO THE PICTURE CAPTION

Electron micrograph proporting to depict (topographically) the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.

CHANGED FROM

Electron micrograph of the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.

Aimulti (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

EM IMAGES

Let us see what Robert Gallo says about EM images. Gallo (page 1306) Frankly speaking, I never relied on electron microscopy. I don’t think electron microscopy does much, except for the person who’s a structural biologist and wants to look at real structure. No-one uses electron microscopy [in] virology any more – nobody. It is as rare as hen’s teeth. From Robert Gallo - testifying at the Andre Parenzee trial in Australia Aimulti (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reiki

I, Bradeos Graphon ??????? ?????? (talk) award you this barnstar for your hard work in the spirit of neutrality on the Reiki article.

reflist

Is there any particular reason for removing references lists from talkpages? I find them convenient when discussing precise proposed wording and issues with sourcing. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A reflist on the talk page only shows the references noted on the talk page. As the talk page is not an exact duplicate of the article page named references will not render correctly in the reflist. A better solution would be to use a bulleted list copied from the article view of the references section. --Lemmey talk 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That the talk page reference list is independent of the article is part of the point, really. Some of the sources under discussion might not be present in the article, and using the citation template allows proposals to display exactly as they would appear in the article. Besides, the article references might change or reorder during a long discussion, rendering a bulleted list obsolete. Using the templates ensures that everyone is talking about the same source and provides a handy reminder link when many sources are being weighed. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 05:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PCR (simplified) page

Hi Eldereft--many thanks for mediating in the dispute over this page. As this entry has now been deleted, I was wondering if it's possible to access it still to transfer any useful portions into the main PCR page (as discussed during the dispute). Thanks!! Malljaja (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, but you will need the help of an administrator. User:DGG is the only one whom I recognized at that discussion, but has been known to be helpful. I think that the best way to retrieve the article history is to make a request at WP:Deletion review and move it to your userspace while the merge is taking place. Good luck. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back on this, Eldereft. Sounds getting access is a little long winded, but if no one beats me to it, I'll try in the next few days. Malljaja (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)