User talk:DigitalC/archive 1

Welcome

Hello DigitalC. I've been looking around the archives at the different perspectives and views on chiropractic. I'm sorry if I seem to contradict you. I see there are a lot of contracticting voices on the article. I think thats ok because debate is a darned good thing in a subject. I guess it'll get us forward.

I'm not working with just my beliefs here. I have research aplenty. My own view is you can take it as spiritual if you like. I take is more as a wholistic thing though. The spine being such a large organ will influence such a lot, and even posture can change your outlook and psychology. Maybe some of the research is a bit of a far cry. But I'm looking forward to better scientific measurement methods. Until then we got our views. I know Wikipedia allows all views and they can be stated. To my mind I think it'd be a great shame not to let patients benefit from the wide range of benefits chiropractic can give. I know I'm a softheart, but I like to help folk as much as I can. I think I speak for a lot of other chiropractic proponents. I fully accept and respect your view also. Arlen Wilps 08:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

GAR comment

Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. Does that mean you would support relisting the article as a WP:GA? Please respond at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy article probation notification

I know you may already read this, but officially I apparently have to put this block of text on your talk page:

You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from homeopathy and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard. QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you have postied this on my talk page, and you not "offically... ...have to put this block of text on [my] talk page", as I have not posted on homeopathy. If you have relevant things to say to me on my talk page, please feel free. Otherwise, please do not post junk on my talk page. DigitalC (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This was not junk. This is an official notification. The chiropractic article is related. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 03:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

How is the Chiropractic article related to any problems going on on Homeopathy? Furthermore, I have no made any disruptive edits to any pages. Until such point as I do, please refrain from posting such crap on my talk page. DigitalC (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have more questions you can go to the probation page. QuackGuru (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

The text is related to the chiropractic article. It is about chiropractic issues. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 04:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT relevant to the subsection. I think it is valid information and belongs in the article, but not in the subsection on safety. Best to stick to the topic at hand. DigitalC (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the most relevant section for that information. You clearly stated it "belongs in the article" and your edit summary said in part [it is] "Well sourced." You have not said which section of the article it belongs to. You have not suggested which section would be better than the Safety section for the relevant text. If you think it belongs in another section then why have you not added it to that section. Please discuss. QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not debating that it does not belong in the article. Just because it belongs in the article does not mean it belongs in the safety section. The safety section should be short and to the point, and should not be discussing efficacy or cost-effectiveness. These belong in the poorly titled sub-article, Scientific investigation into chiropractic. DigitalC (talk) 05:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You said it belongs in the article and now you think it does not belong in the article. Exactly where does it belong. QuackGuru (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF and drop the hostility. I am not going to debate with you where it does belong. It does NOT belong in the subsection on safety, as it is not about safety.DigitalC (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Until a better place is found for the well sourced text it should stay in the Safety section. I am convinced it can remain in the Safety section because it is relevant and you are unwilling to provide an explanation to an alternative place to put the valid information. Your comments do not match your edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It should not stay in the safety section, as it is not relevant to safety. We should take this to the article talk page, as we don't seem to be making any progress here. I do not needed to provide an explanation to an alternative place for you to put the information - it is NOT valid for the safety section. In fact, Eubulides has posted recently on the talk page about the same issue, that efficacy and cost-effectiveness should not be in the section on safety. DigitalC (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you insist I will create a new Efficacy section with all the hard cold facts. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the passive-agressiveness. I have 'insisted' nothing to the sort of what you have just suggested. DigitalC (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you said it does belong somewhere and I am going to put it somewhere. Thanks for you help. QuackGuru (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work on Chiropractic

DigitalC, I knew you had it in you ;-) I am very impressed. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Den of Nargun

Hi DigitalC,

I was probably mainly editing that article to put some photos in there. Any text information I added would have either come from the Mitchell River National Park park notes or signage in the park.

There's a link to park notes on the web already in the article (I may have even added it as I notice it's also in the MRNP Ref section). The paper based park notes I think had slightly different info - that's referenced on the MRNP page as (2004) Mitchell River National Park - Visitor Guide. Bairnsdale: Parks Victoria., which I'm fairly sure I added. However, re the Den of Nargun and Deadcock Den themselves, I actually think most of the info I added was from the park signage; I still have photos of them if they'd be of any help. Not entirely sure how to reference them. --jjron (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS/N

Sorry, I was totally confused, it was a little cryptic. I hope I didn't come off as rude. Relata refero (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)