Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 8

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:CamNoticePrevious discussions are archived here:

Back to Basics

PS, for everybody: Using Word as Photoshop, with a revenge, desperatingly expecting others to correct her own mistakes, while writing here above that she has plenty of time to lose, hmm, shall I continue?

An editor and a sysop writing anything but alternative medicine on the alternative medicine page is a troll. She prevents real job being done, she turns Wiki into a market where volunteers lose their time contributing and cops like she is lose everybody's time policing. Not to be continued, let alone reccommended. Just let her laugh all the time - for her own enjoyment (perhaps she needs it badly, judging from her venting alleged charms on the market place :O). Message for Theresa: get a life, dear! While John here is the only one doing the the real work, to his honor, just let us all HELP him or at THE VERY LEAST let him REST unharassed, and hey, alternative medicine, anyone ? :O) - irismeister 14:31, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Reverts without explanation

MNH: in the interests of article editing without reversion wars and working well with others of different viewpoint to yourself, it would greatly help if, should you feel a revert is the only possible sensible edit, to put a suitable explanation in the edit summary. And on the talk page. Thanks! - David Gerard 14:41, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

AM has been stable for quite a long time. DG in talk archive 6 declared his intentions to unilaterally vandalize AM. DG's changes go far beyond adding a stupid quote! -- John Gohde 19:53, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I certainly do not wish to vandalise an article. I do wish to reinsert points of view that you, with no doubt the best of intentions, have tried to remove from any mention in the article, using a style guide you wrote yourself as your justification. While it certainly explains your edits, it doesn't constitute authority as such in itself - David Gerard 20:10, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

AM has been stable for quite a long time. You are the person deliberately puting controversey back into AM. Remember that time is on my side. If anybody is too afraid to edit, that is their problem. AM has been stable for quite a long time. You are the person deliberately puting controversey back into AM. -- John Gohde 05:35, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

MNH that's the second time you reverted the article today. Again without an explanation. Why are you doing it? theresa knott 21:41, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh, Theresugar, you become a real embarassment for the Wiki community - go troll your brand new shining Wikicop boots elsewhere, for we don't have much time for you today honey. Incidentally, please admit you are only a brutal WikiCop policewoman who only messes around here - or prove your good will by answering my EIGHTH request to remove the fight or flight, most stupid unexplained addition. Ya know, that disgraceful POV you cared to lay like a rotten egg, on top of the other AM article. Prove you can behave without messing around or attracting all attention to you, away from whatever we do. Prove your grown up charms - intellectually, if you can. Like answering eight due questions before caring to ask yourself yet another stupid question. Then go draw some Word jpegs elsewhere, willya, baby ? kiss kiss - irismeister 07:04, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

I assume that you can Read TK? And, please Theresa (as in pleading) don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter about you refraining from making personal attacks or harrassing me (4.2 Decree A. & B.) in response to my above comments. -- John Gohde 05:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

David, before you bother John any more, please note Theresa harasses him in editing, after a long history of conflicts, bannings and disruptions. She is becoming a pain for the Wiki community. I will reflect on the appropriate procedure and count on you for serious admonitions for her delirious behavior. Just watch her systematic, childish, and recently sexual harassment on the iridology pages and in these pages - last archives. There is a pattern of Theresa attacking and smearing the AM and I articles. This is hostile behavior, abuse of sysop powers, harassment at large and more than her previous libel. I mean business, David! Drop your aggressive insinuations, and contribute sensible content - or leave and let us work here. You disrupt our work and do nothing new. An area where you CAN do something is to police the policewomen. Do it! It will help. Try to be really helpful for once. Quies custodies ipsos custodes ? irismeister 17:21, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Let me remind you what you did to the iridology page: Here's what you found as an ersatz of explanation: "I would have more faith in your good intentions if they didn't involve posting your own name or your own website as an authority on the validity of iridology. - David Gerard 21:23, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)" And here is what vox clamantis in deserto were (what I preached in the desert for you), David: David, what you reverted on grounds of "self-promotion" was only good information. Please see the iridology talk page for details. We must not hunt POVs and delete them. We must only mark them as such, and explain them seriously. NPOV is a measure of central tendency in a wide field where all POVs are spread eagle. NPOV editing is not some innate or recessive trait of some uebermenschen - it's only a grand mean of all POVs expressed as such - and especially freely. Your insistance in automatic reversion did not help you see the fact: For two months, the iridology page was frozen on the good version. You reverted to the wrong one. Here we go again ! - irismeister 22:53, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

sexual harrasment? You like it! You know you do! You called me baby for months despite my asking you not to because i found it offensive. Now you going to go running to get "serious admonitions"? Don't be so bloody daft. You mention my name in every other post you make. You post rubbish on my talk page despite my not having spoken to you in weeks. You are obsessed with me, and you know it.You call me a police woman cause you fantasize about me in the uniform -especially the boots. It's no good crying to mama now, you shouldn't start things you won't finish. it's not my fault you can't handle me. Kiss kiss. theresa knott 18:31, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Theresa honey you are delirious. You are in the AM page, here. And in Wiki. And in public. If you want to show me something, or discuss my sexual preferences, you can still dream on about using Wiki for that purpose. You and me, baby, we can arrange a private meeting, you know. Just what does this have to do with our work here in AM ? Can't you tell the difference between our work (you don't know what it is) and your play (the only thing you do with your Word image editor? If you want, I'll be in London on June 5th, like Jim and David. Perhaps they can introduce you to me. In the mean time, please refrain from spilling your alleged charms, and save them for the real meeting. Kiss kiss :O) - irismeister 19:16, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Irismeister I'm not coming on to you. I'm ridiculing you. Taking the piss, laughing at you. Do you understand now? There is no point in asking for a private meeting, it'll never happen. I'd rather eat my mother in law's cooking. You won't come to London and you know it Waniek, just like you didn't take me to court when i pointed out your lies. You're all talk. Think about it, how are you going to insist you're not Waniek when we can see your face? Eh? You never thought of that did you? theresa knott 20:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

You only ridicule your hyperinflated self, honey. Wiki does not want to hear what baby baby did to the potty potty, wiki wiki. Not interesting. There is a special section where you can teach WikiCop habits, special English or drawing "Word jpegs". This is for medical articles, honey, a place for grown-ups. Now be the good girl we all know you are and save Wiki from the embarassment you cause. You are the fastest growing Wikipain and rapidly becoming a Wiki institutional trolling trademark. Today we have little time for you. As for my face, just face it dear, and bare with me - it's none of your business, as, I'm afraid, is editing per se. You belong to the Royal Wikipolicewomen Constabulary - and we'll see each other in London, only stupid as you are, you won't recognize me sugar. My name is Jipa, TK. And my face has long turned away from yours, a long time ago when I realized you were only the medical articles troll you are. If you are not stupid, prove it by removing the embarassing "fight for flight" explanation you found for iridology and added as a POV to the other AM article you destroyed - irismeister 07:17, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

Oohh diaper fetishism kinky! theresa knott 08:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Shutup dear, you are off topic again! Go do your homework! Cauz we work here, theresugar, and have no time whatsoever for your dirty DIVERTING imagination! Try answering my ten questions or at the very least only ONE single question related to the subject matter or go troll and police other pages ! TENTH SUCH REQUEST - are you deaf or only BADLY MANNERED ? You are disqualified HERE in Wiki, with no credibility and no serious pretention to come here again, except for trolling, as demonstrated above. Moving boxes to harass John does not a serious person make ! End of Theresa story :O) What a shame that a wonderful place like Wiki obliges serious contributors lose NINETY percent of their time policing the Wikicops ! What a shame ! - irismeister 11:43, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

"Standards Of Quality Guidelines"

These may be a matter of some controversy, in that MNH is treating them as absolute hard incontrovertible Wikipedia rules when it's actually a style guide suggestion list written entirely by MNH. So therefore informed only by his point of view, no opposing points of view. I hope, MNH, you can see how this might lead to it not being considered absolute hard incontrovertible Wikipedia rules by others, but rather as a long essay on your point of view. To this effect, I've added a relevant notice, which I certainly hope MNH would not silently remove while controversy remains. Because he's not like that - David Gerard 14:56, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

More lies? See the big fat notice above. The QSG's have been well advertised with many requests made for public comments. Nobody is stoping you from either commenting or joining the project. -- John Gohde 20:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they're your personal style guide, not policy. You've formed a personal project and claimed a list of articles, many existing, as your own; but that doesn't mean your style guide is hard policy and it doesn't mean your personal project owns the articles it claims. Wikipedia is, essentially, a single project. I hope you would have more wikilove than to call me a liar when I am acting in only the best of faith. I don't call you a liar. I would hope you wouldn't act in an antisocial manner. - David Gerard 20:10, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

More lies? Nevertheless, you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. I on the other hand made the project operational within 2 weeks. Keep on dreaming. Phase I has been offically completed. Phase II: the complaince audits will begin within a week or two, regardless of your above comments. The results of ours audits will be posted on the respective talk pages in order to expose the light of day to your nonsense. I know this, becuase I know what I am doing regardless of your above comments. To the next revert which wont be very far into the future. AM needs to recover from your vandalizing AM with your unnecessary additons of controversy. -- John Gohde 05:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)~

It wasn't "stable," [1] in that you've been substantially trimming content as per your personal style guide, Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality (though there's nothing at all wrong with that, as long as you realise that declaration of a Project doesn't automatically make it in any way binding upon others). ~~What you mean is there was an absence of edits you didn't like.~~ I don't see how this precludes future edits you don't like - could you please explain? Also, please point out in the history where you think this period of stability was. Thanks! Also, are you claiming that these "audits" will have more standing than just being your personal opinion as set out in your style guide? If so, I'd be very interested in details of how that works. Thanks! - David Gerard 10:36, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Mr NH refactored the above comment by David claiming that David was making a personal attack. I disagree that the above is a personal attack so I restored it. theresa knott 15:36, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Before we lock horns for the next session, just give us a break David! I can't see anything relevant in what you do on this page, except for a pattern of disruption. Hang on buddy, leave John work in peace, and I mean business ! Drop your aggressive insinuations and contribute sensibly, if you can. If not, leave, cauz' you bring nothing new, or interesting here, related to the debate. Nothing AT ALL, capisci ? irismeister 17:24, 2004 May

I have no intention to "lock horns," as you put it. I fully intend to work with the finest Wikilove known to mankind. Yes, even for you, Dan. I certainly hope you would not look at work on this article in any other terms. As per the admonitions of that page: "try to actually understand what the other side has to say." I shall even try to understand you. "Respect other contributors." Do you feel respectful, Dan? - David Gerard 18:41, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

Not towards you David. You didn't earn it. I respect people who don't bully their way into sysophood and then waste other people's time. If you want to go beyond your declarations, go, and we'll see. Too many beautiful words and too many diversions, plus your history of iridology page reversals do not make you a good candidate for my list of Wiki people I respect. You are on Theresa's list, with other Wikicops. Who Wikiloves and Wikitolerates the Wikiwolf, is VERY cruel to the Wikilamb, the only one I respect for modesty, humble, day to day contribution to the accumulation of Wikiknowledge and the cause of truth. Wiki people are of course aware of the growing list of Wikicops doing nothing but traffic regulation and gesturing. We have an example of misplaced outburst of strip tease and alleged teasing, as if Wikicops like Theresa were intrinsically more attractive than, or in lieu of the very article they were supposed to "contribute" to. Alas, they aren't. As for your Wikilove, a love that's told with bad intent, beats all the hate you can invent :O) - irismeister 19:25, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

See! There you are mentioning my name again. You really are obsessed with me. I never offered striptease, you are letting you imagination get carried away waniek. theresa knott 20:23, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I never offered striptease

Good. For it would have been yet another embarassment, honey!
you imagination
That would have worked miracles for it would have supplanted the mess you are. For you have nothing to show, except for the potty potty, have you? Try this for a change (NINETH such request): REMOVE the "fight for flight" POV of yours on how iridology "works", for it only "works" for you this way. If you feel you have some time or competence left for the AM article, or only for the iridology article, try a simpler one: what is the mean, the median and the mode, as well as the analysis of variance for the processi dentati counts so far, as related to the iris? It will take some time to fool around the Google garbage ballot where you "find" your iridology explanations. Be happy for the great Wiki achievment you can boast with - removing me from editing what I know better, via your superiors in Wikicommittees. For "iridology" in Wiki will remain an article only you can take credit for :O) In the mean time, go police, troll and destroy other articles than medical, will ya ? - irismeister 07:30, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

"and animals"

Under ==Regulation==: "This can be a particular issue in the treatment of children and animals." Why "and animals"? - David Gerard 13:36, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Because animals can't make there own descitions about healthcare. The UK legal system (the one I'm fermilia with) also has stronger legisation for animals than human aduldts (only a qualified vet can treat animals). Geni 14:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a note to that effect (the legal system bit)? It confused me in an article ostensibly about human medicine - David Gerard 14:31, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

On MNH's personal style guide

Note to MNH: "personal style guide" isn't meant in any derogatory way. User:David Gerard contains mine, for example. Yours is a perfectly respectable personal ideal. I merely maintain that it is not and cannot be binding on others merely by declaration - David Gerard 16:17, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

A serious question to MNH

How on earth does asking you if your style guide for your Alternative Medicine project is just your personal style guide or something more constitute a "personal attack"? I really don't see it - David Gerard 16:35, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you David, while John does some real AM work unimpeded by your DIVERTING questions. We are here to improve CONTENT, not your imagination !!!!! If you can't see how on earth as you put it, or something more constitute a "personal attack"? go try your friend Theresa and tell her that the troll she is does PERSONALLY and REPEATEDLY TROLL, DESTROY, DIVERT ANY PAGE and ATTACK any EDITOR of the medical articles except for those who know nothing about the matter sub judice - and her own Wikicops for that matter. How's that for an answer, David, the selective feigned inintelligent editor and contributor ? - irismeister 11:57, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

You know, this whole temper tantrum of yours is really juvenile and just plain stupid.

Yeah ? And how about selective tunnel vision and your own style, my endlessly nice talking Wikilover and REGULATING Wikicop ? - irismeister 11:57, 2004 May 19 (UTC) Are you now trying to supplant the tiring lady TK as yet another Wikicop ? What on earth have your own diverted visions and POVs to do with the subject of AM ??? FOCUS, EDITOR, FOCUS - we discuss CONTENT not CHARACTERS ! PUT A STICKER ON YOUR SCREEN BEFORE YOU "CONTRIBUTE" AGAIN HERE in this lovely way of yours ! - irismeister 11:57, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

LOL now irismister is talking to Mr Natty Health thinking he is me. This just gets funnier and funnier. Oh unless MR NH is you lover? That would be cool!theresa knott 12:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

The SQGs when finished are for the benefit of all editors. Any editor will be able to quote these guidelines by number in order to point out precisely what is wrong with the latest edit on any CAM article, without having to resort to personal attacks, such as yours. In CAM, there are more restrictive requirements than just NPOV, such as the controvsey notice above which your quote totally ignored. They are not my invention as your lies are trying to say. The SQG is a complication of direct quotes on what other editors have written on the subject.

I simply tested them out, once, on one stupid quote, which just so happens to have failed 6 out of the 12 guidelines or 50%. That fact alone, should tell you who exactly the trouble maker here is. It certainly is not me. You better get use to them, as you will be seeing them in the future on virtually all of my edit summaries and talk comments.

There is no personal style guide existing in this project.

Furthermore, the SQGs have no direct bearing upon the compliance audits. The CAs will be based on a master list of key questions that are derived from the SQGs. Again, the SQGs will allow editors to objectively talk about what is wrong with the latest edit without resorting to personal attacks.

DIVERSION - FOCUS DAVID, FOCUS and let us work for we don't have time for your DIVERSIONS, can you hear ? - irismeister 11:57, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I am tired of having to point out the totally obvious, to people like you, who are intent upon totally disrupting the normal stable editing process of Wikipedia. The days of the kooks bickering over endless nonsense is rapidly coming to an end. -- John Gohde 17:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

(question moved to [2] Sam [Spade] 00:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC))

Osteopathy is still being attacked as alternative medicine.

Osteopathy in it's orginal form is and always will be alt med (or quackery depending on where you draw the line between the two) DO's don't really practice osteopathy any more which is why they have the same status (pretty much) as MD's. In my country osteopaths pratices something far closer to the orginal form and as such are very defintly alt med. There are also a number of people who practice the orginal form of osteopathy who are definetly in the alt med catigopry. As such the point is meaningless.

from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine

The disambiguation is fine. One thing, though. In the United States, I think those that go to osteopathic schools get a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) degree and practice medicine without an M.D. degree. If so, Doctor of Medicine should be rephrased a bit (not all physicians in the United States have an M.D.). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ksheka 17:37, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

The point is far from meaningless as you have just attacked osteopathy as quackery even though osteopathy is conventional medicine. Speaks to the credibility of the attacker. -- John Gohde 10:45, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Kindly do not missrepsent what I say. I stated that in it's orginal form it is alt med or in the view of some poeple some people quackery. If you read on you will find that I defined Osteopathy both in it's orginal form and how it is praticed in the uk as alt med.No would you be kind enough to adress my orginal points?Geni 11:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)~