text:
Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 6

studies
Is having studies that support or detract from specific alt med claims really a good idea? The problem is that I could produce dozens of studies that find not effects for homeopathy of chiropracty and the articlr could end up looking slightly odd. Wouldn't it be better to put studies aimed at specific forms on thier own pages?Geni 16:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

 * Correct! Studies on homeopathy and chiopractic should go on their respective articles. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:00, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable but the problem is, the section gives the impression that AM therapies are on the whole ok, and that some people dismiss the whole of AM becuase of the failings of one branch of it. I am trying to redress the balance by showing that debunking is not confined to just say for example homeopathy, but in fact applies to many other bramches of AM. If you or anyone can think of a way of wording this critism of AM without the need for all the references, then i am happy to port them to the respective pages. theresa knott 14:41, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think one example per critism would be a good apraoch. Currently we have two examples of research showing that a perticular alt med does not work I havn't got round to reading the iridology research yet but assuming it is of good quality I would keep it ond drop the mention of the bbc test (which doesn't really test homeopathy anyway). There are some cross CAM aricles such as this onehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12974558 which may be useful. I'll see what else I can find.Geni 16:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I hate to break your bubble, but the way of real science says that no single research study can either prove or disprove anything in medical / health research. Most research papers state more research is needed for a reason.  Even conventional medicine does this.  They issue practice guidelines which tries to or suggests how clincial practice should treat a specific medical condition.  To repeat, a single research study never ever is the final word on anything in the wonderous way of real science . -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:10, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It is not however nesscary to include these studies in the article. If you fell otherwise I will be more than happy to insert studies that back the 'it does not work critism'. Just expect to end up with a very long article that is a pain to readGeni

 * I suggest that you try reading the very first paragraph in the support section. Nobody, certainly not me, is certifying that alternative medicine works.  Nevertheless, there are plenty of real physicians who use complementary and integrative medicine in their clinical practice of medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The reason I put them in is because Mr Natural health tends to remove critisms of AM if they are not backed up by studies. theresa knott 18:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I did read it. I'm not objecting to it. I'm suggesting that it may not be be nesscary to provide so many many studies that on focus on one critism. Since you don't feel this is the case do you wan't me to list all the studies I have avaible supporting the varius critisms? Geni

John we are not trying to "prove or disprove" anything. We are trying to write a well balanced article. The fact that plenty of real physicians who use complimentary medicine does not mean that the article should not have a robust critism section. Dont you agree? theresa knott 19:20, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Per comments I made on my talk page: There are a number of possible academic arguments that can be made against the field of alternative medicine. I could list them *all* myself. In fact, I wrote most of the last two paragraphs in the criticism section.

 * What I want are *all* the rational clearly established criticisms added to the article and all the irrational nonsense against alternative medicine taken out so that the current state of edit wars can end. It is as simple and as plain as that. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: Citing Michalsen 2003, Gonsalkorale 2003, and Berga 2003... Psychology (CBT, Hypnosis) and a hot bath (hydrotherapy), are alternative medicine? How are studies about fairly welll known, HMO/publicly publicly paid for, normal kinds of medicine "alternative", be useful in supprting C/AM? I don't see anything in the listed branches of C/AM that covers hot baths being good for circulation as anything other than accepted science, or that indicated basic psychotherapy as being anything other than conventional medicine.

I was going to remove the studies, and all text that references it, but it might be nice if someone could explain to me how hot baths are anything but accepted conventional medicine, or why CBT is supposed to be something beyond mainstraim, conventional, science and medicine. Ronabop 06:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

This view of alternative medicine is probably shared by most scientists.
Actually, the correct comment should be: This view of alternative medicine is probably shared by those people who think that they are a scientist.

At this time, I would like to point out that my comment in our Wikiproject standard of quality guidelines about adding any hint of controversy in the first 3 paragraphs documents non-compliance to our guidelines was created long before the latest change in the article.

Of course, alternative medicine has been adding controversy in the first three paragraphs for quite some time, now. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:34, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * contirversy=staments that are not pro alt med?Geni

The public wants to buy vitamins over the counter
What has this got to do with anything? It is type specific It is a logiacl fallicy (appeal to popularity) It has nothing to do with the legitimcy or otherwise of alt medGeni

 * It is of course a response to the following criticism under regulation.

 * Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional medicine. This would require these treatments to be proven safe and effective in scientific trials, a hurdle that these critics strongly believe would not be met; some herbal preparations, like ephedra, have been proven to be dangerous. Herbal preparations also vary in potency and may be contaminated.

 * -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 23:49, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But it doesn't even respond to the critism. "The criticism voiced about the need to regulate and control herbal medicines and dietary supplements is a call by the medical community for these over-the-counter products to be available by prescription only" it's not a call to make them prescription only, it's a call to make them regulated.The are plenty of regulated, drugs, proven safe in clinical trials that are available over the counter. theresa knott 00:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * ''They're plenty of regulated, drugs, proven safe in clinical trials that are available over the counter." No, I do not think so. Regulation requires control, and that means prescriptions and pharmacies. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know if you are poorly traveled in the english speaking world, deliberatly naïve, or what. In the US there are bountiful amounts of regulated, and unregulated (and in some cases fatal) substances available at local supermarkets, convenience stores, bodegas, etc. While shopping here, and picking up some bread, I can buy substances that are banned from the Olympics, substances that are sometimes fatal, with no regulation, no prescriptions needed. What would you prefer as proof? Academic citations, or will a few pictures of my local markets do? Ronabop 10:58, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * In the UK there are many drugs with a general sales lisence. Even at the most basic you must admit that aspirin and paracetamol are avaible that way.Geni 11:42, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I have been reporting on aspirin research studies for the last two years. There are plenty of people who want to make the use of aspirin regulated. The borders of the US are regulated, too.  So, much for that theory!  The only practical way to regulate vitamins would be to make them prescription, only. In Mexico, I can buy presription drugs over the counter.  I can also buy prescription drugs over the counter on the Internet and legally by mail. Do we really want to be talking about Mexico, the Intenet, and buying drugs from the Caribbean by mail-- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:26, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Your stament is incorect and largly based on speculation. At the very least it fails to take into account Pharmacy medcine and it also mists genral sales list. The argument that people will go else where is irrelivant. You are trying to defend the claim that regualtion will make things prescription only and that this is in some way a bad thing.Geni 14:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Quote: Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional medicine. The way conventional medicine regulates drugs is with prescriptions because only physicians and dentists can write prescriptions in the US. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Nope sorry but OTC medicines like aspirin are still conventional medicine.theresa knott 14:48, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Almost, forgot! OTC use of aspirin is one of those home remedies that you claim never work.  Aspirin seems to work for me.  And, it is an effective home remedy within certain parameters. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:29, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * So, you are saying that OTC vitamins, minerals, and the herbs that need to be regulated are still conventional medicine? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * That's not what I said at all. I said that calls for OTC herbal medicines to be regulated does not imply they will (or should) become POMs. Let's stick to the point please. theresa knott 15:12, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Speaking of sticking to the point ...

 * Quote: Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional medicine. The way conventional medicine regulates drugs is with prescriptions because only physicians and dentists can write prescriptions in the US. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The word medicine, you know, has a double meaning. So, to translate: Some doctors have called for alternative therapies, particularly herbal medicines, to be regulated in the same way as conventional prescription medication.  It is not my planet.  I just happen to live on it. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:37, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not interested in word games. Unless it can be shown that regulation=POM I'm going to remove that sectionGeni 16:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Definition
The definition that currently leads this article is "broadly describes diagnosis, treatment or therapy used in place of conventional medical treatments." This is vague and is contradicted within the next few paragraphs by the mention of "complementary medicine". I assume that the author did not intend to exclude complementary use of alternative therapies, but that is precisely what the definition says. I propose to delete it and replace it with the more precise and accurate definition I added at the end of the first paragraph, but as a matter of courtesy and in view of the amount of controversy on this page, I am inviting comment before deleting. My major reservation about my new definition is that it is primarily applicable in the US and Canada, and probably most of Europe and the developed world. I welcome further improvement. alteripse 1 may 04

 * First of all, the very term is an oxymoron! I started out about 5 talk archives ago with using my own personal definition of alternative medicine. It did not last long.  I suggest that we simply stick to how it is defined in the dictionary, if for no other reason than NPOV. About 30 different online internet dictionaries currently define the term, as we have defined it. So, I fail to see any problems with the present method. The science people seem to think that it is all alternative medicine.  That AM is by definition quackery, etc., etc., etc.  Using your own private definiton, Perhaps, is the very definition of controversy? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:09, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * 1. I think I understand what you are saying, but the definition as it stands is simply wrong. Most alternative medicine in the US and Europe is not used instead of scientific medicine, which is what the definition says. You didn't address this objection.

 * Most alternative medicine in the US and Europe is not used instead of scientific medicine. Yes, I am glad that the MD wrote this statement. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * 2. The definition I offered is quite objective and applies to everthing in the list of types of alternative medicine. Why do you claim it is NPOV? Whether something is licensed is not a matter of POV, and you haven't offered any other criterion by which all those types of alternative medicine are related. *alteripse 1 may 04

 * I think there's a problem in defining alternative medicine by what it is *not.* It is not very informative.   Alteripse, if you sign your comments with four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~) without the spaces between them, your user name and date/time stamp will appear after you comment.  heidimo  18:35, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, you convinced me. I changed the sentence and will not change the primary definition. I think the concept I am offering is worth keeping because it is the principal core of the controversy. (and I'll try the tilde trick) Alteripse 18:47, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Think about it a bit. ... therapy which can be provided legally by persons who are not licensed to diagnose and treat disease." If it is legal, then it is regulated by the government. So, if it is both legal and regulated then the alternative practitioners are licensed to diagnose and treat disease. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 19:28, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I couldn't have put it better, Mr. Gohde. You've grasped the paradox and the essential dishonesty in so much of alt med, at least in the US. Why do you think all the wanna-be physicians from chiropractors to naturopaths to the makers of dietary supplements tell the consumer "this product/procedure is not intended to diagnose or treat disease..."? Much of alt med is simply people and companies who want to pretend to be physicians without the inconvenience of having to learn so much and without the responsibility of being accountable for outcomes. The biggest difference between the stuff you buy in the nutrition store and the stuff you buy from the pharmacy is that those who sell things labelled "dietary supplements" can avoid all the inconvenient laws related to honest labelling, consistency of contents, and that little item of demonstrating that the product actually helps the condition they sell it for. But that of course is POV. Alteripse 20:10, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, Doctor ... Alternative medicine is a very broad area. Many would include DO's (Doctor of Osteopathy) in the definition.  In Virginia, DO's are practicing medicine right alongside MD's.  And, there is hardly a dimes worth of difference between them other than that the DO's are supposedly interested in using complemenary medicine. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * And, it accounts for why there are already five archives. Perhaps, number six will be here before night fall? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 20:18, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Nice answer. You are right, it is hard to fit this stuff into the article without it becoming a rant (and I won't try). Alteripse 20:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Mr. Gohde, your removal of my factual sentence without justification is discourteous. It was an entirely factual statement regardless of your or my POV. It is also a very core issue in this field, and helps people understand why this page is so controversial. I kept my POV interpretations on the Talk page. You owe me and this project more respect than this. Alteripse 19:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Kindly STOP making personal attacks against me. In my opinion, you are totally confused, are wasting my time, and have violated more than one well established Wikipedia guidelines which are clearly pointed out in the project's quality of standards guidelines.  While you obviously think that you are the most important person in the entire world, I do not hold your view. I have entertained your nonsense, too long as it is. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 20:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Other than pointing out what appeared to me a discourtesy, I made no personal attacks. There were no violations of Wik policy. However, if you see it otherwise, you may relax, as you have demonstrated that there is no possibility of constructive interchange or discourse on this article. I will leave you to squat on it in peace. Alteripse 22:03, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It's a shame that Mr NH has driven you from the page. I just want to say that you have not made any personal attacks. IMO mt NH does not really believe that you made a personal attack. He simply said that in order to gain the upper hand. theresa knott 22:28, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It's a shame that TK likes to reply when she can launch more harassment and personal attacks my way.

 * 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, aka Mr-Natural-Health 01:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Put up or shut up Mr NH. Take me to the arbitration committee.I'd love to see what they make of your new bout of rudeness. You know that they are still monitoring your behaviour to see if your ban had the desired effect? theresa knott 09:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You seem to be confused TK! This is Phase I.  It is not until Phase IV of the project that we will bring the 'wrong doers' to task with community support.  You know TK, at the end of summer 2004. Sorry to disappoint you, but I happen to be one of their success stories. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

LOL you won't get community support against me. Yo're living in some kind of dreamworld. As for you being a sucsess story, I don't call driving Alteripse away from this page much of a success story. We are supposed to be nice to newbies here. theresa knott 07:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Dream world? The project is not against you per se. In Phase IV of the project the wrong doers will be taken care of through a consensus of community support.  Today, the CAM project reached a tentative agreement with the WikiDoc project, I would call that a form of community consensus.  In  the future, the project will prefer to deal directly with organized groups of editors.  We really don't have time to waste on individual trouble making renegades.  But, we will deal with the wrong doers when the time comes as the need arises in Phase IV of our project.  Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde 23:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not reverting the paragraph but insist you are making a factual error. Honest chiropractors treat subluxations to maintain health; they don't treat disease. They will be the first to tell you that. Again, your example supports the essential importance of this distinction. If you want to argue that alternative practitioners are actually diagnosing and treating disease in the same way physicians do, you are accusing them of doing something illegal in much of the developed world. This issue of whether and how alt med practices and the alt med culture are shaped by the laws defining medical diagnosis and treatment is at the heart of the whole cultural controversy over alt med. You keep omitting the sentence but you haven't responded with anything that is civil, accurate, and substantive. I said I would leave the page alone and I will keep my word. This is a last attempt to engage in civil and substantive discussion but if you can't or won't I'll drop it and leave the whole topic alone here as well.Alteripse 02:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * From Chiropractic medicine, to-wit: Classical chiropractic theory holds that the correction of subluxation can cure or treat most disease So, I would like to receive a public apology from you for wasting more of my valuable time. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:08, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I am sincerely sorry that my comments have wasted both of our times. No more. Alteripse 03:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, Doctor ... Alternative medicine is a very broad area. Many would include DO's (Doctor of Osteopathy) in the definition. In Virginia, DO's are practicing medicine right alongside MD's. And, there is hardly a dimes worth of difference between them other than that the DO's are supposedly interested in using complemenary medicine. Try to tell me that DO's do not diagnosis and treat disease. Chiropractic, just like Osteopathy, has expanded and developed since it was first introduced in America.  Their scope of services  has expanded to include diagnosis and treatment of diseases. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * http://www.onelook.com/?w=alternative+medicine&ls=a shows 19 online dicitionaries all defining alternative medicine the way we have done it in alternative medicine. I guess all those dictionaries are just plain stupid, too? Of course, somebody who has only been on Wikipedia for one month knows all the anwers and the collective efforts of all our editors over a couple of years doesn't match your opinion.  I wonder why? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 03:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * He seems to have Wikiquette down fairly well. Better than some who have been here far longer. -- Politeness-man 03:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Severe social disconnect
The last time I was struck by the level of disconnect was when MNH implied that people might have to actually pay for vitamins.... I guess he lives in a country where people don't pay for basic health. In the US, we almost always pay. For everything. Vitamins, drugs, everything.

That made me think about a whole lot of other issues. Mostly about his tone in this discussion. He may be fighting to get vitamins to the public, while others are so tired of paying for fake "supplements" that they decry his vitamins. He may live in a country that does ten times as much about a fatal disease, but people still die, so he may blame the available medicine. Others of us note that we don't get free basic HIV cocktails, and have become cynical about paying for new "cures".

In the US, we don't get interesting, free, "complementary" medicince. We don't even get free medicine. We are fighting for mere basics, he is fighting for luxuries.

Anyways, I think we should all note that we are not connecting on the same level. If we adjust our minds for such, maybe we would have less flamewars. Reading into MNH's pages, folks in the US don't even eat well,, but in the US, how would we know? Ronabop 10:30, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * None of what you are arguing about is even in the article. Just thought that you might want to know.

 * And please stop putting your lies into my mouth which I have never said, nor even hinted at. I regard your above comments as yet another personal attack wage by the wrong doers in Wikipedia.  The age of your ilk is rapidly coming to an end.

 * My health accredited website was just re-certified about a week ago. Just thought that you might want to know. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Ronobop tries to calm the discussion down amd you see that as a personal attack? theresa knott 15:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh! You mean like Uncle Ed declaring an edit war, here, which nobody came to?  May I suggest, that the science people don't post unless they are in a coherent frame of mind? -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * No you may not suggest that; some of us would never get to edit ;-) (incidentally Ed did not call for an edit war - but you knew that already)
 * I wrote declared. See the dictionary for details. If you people are watching, then you are wasting a lot of time. :)  -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 15:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, i have plenty of time to waste. You won't drive me away like you did Alteripse. Have no fear of that. theresa knott 15:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 *  Don't worry, i have plenty of time to waste.  :O) Brilliant :O) I have it proposed for Wikigems. Who knows, it might become a criterion for new sysops :O) We all have a purpose in life, Theresa. Perhaps yours is to waste your time :O) Have no fear either, I will not let you waste John's time. You may count on that :O)

 * I'm not sure what all this rucus is about, but the problem people have with what governments internationally have agreed to do with vitamins + minerals and other dietary supplements is horrorfying for people whose lives literally depend on these things. People pay for these products now, the issue is governments trying to implement de-facto bans on supplements at the bequest of medical companies who view them as financial competition. They do not want people realising that a myriad of physical and 'mental' conditions can often be easily treated by taking these products, when they have so much money to make out of drugs. ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ

 * What governments are trying to ban the sale of OTC vitamins? theresa knott 16:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The FDA has gone for them in the past ('50s-'60s, owing to abuse of them by quacks), though I don't know about recently - David Gerard 16:24, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Kindly move this off topic discussion to dietary supplements. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 16:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This whole off topic (as you call it) discussion has taken place because you argured that the section "The public wants to buy vitamins over the counter" was a response to critisms that AM "medicines" should be regulated. theresa knott 16:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I shall repeat, yet again. None of what you are arguing about is currently in the article. Just thought that you might want to know.

 * 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, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * How have I harrased you or made a personal attack? (The AC's decree was to stop irismeister harassing me, he followed me around insulting me wherever i went, but you already know this) You can take me the the AC anytime you like. I expect they could do with a good laugh. theresa knott 17:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The decree explicitely prohibited you from engaging into policing more competent contributors than you are. In other words, it intimated for your vastly improved understanding to stop spilling around your disgraceful bits of deconstructive attitudes. Amazing what a little sleeves pulling does, er? Alas, it didn't last. You need a booster. Here it is, for your sysoping pleasure: Watch out, Theresa, you are carefull watched AS WELL! And you are systematically reported form now on, for abuse of sysop power, incompetence and malevolence, until you are downgraded to the position you can maintain - drawing tampons with pride, and using the Word as Photoshop with a revenge. I will again have some students inspect your "contributions" in health articles you mess around with. Last - what you stated on your page about other people doing corrections for you, is haughty, naughty und unwise. We are not here to teach you English, word spelling or the guidelines of logical thinking. However, you were right - we'll happily check, from now on, EVERY instantiation of your Wiki-destroying attitude, turned into "edits" in health related articles :O) - irismeister 12:12, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

 * Perhaps, if you were to concentrate? I specifically wrote don't forget about the voting in the Irismeister matter.  Please stop trying to put words into my mouth which I have never written or hinted at.

 * Oh I see, you were just trolling me. theresa knott 17:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You are not that important, even if you try to look like important. Nobody trolls you. If you are watched, so that you may not destroy Wiki health articles, as you keep doing for months now, this is SANITY, and a service to the Wiki community not trolling. This Theresawatch restores good Wiki habits you are so keen to mingle into, so that you might hope to see them destroyed. Nobody trolls you, Theresa. You just need some hard homework before you waste people's time in Wiki. The cause of health is far more important than you are ! As you know, I commit my time as a free service to the Wiki community, in order to spare others some time used better for real editing not your self-righteous blahblah- irismeister 12:12, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

 * Feel free to continue arguing about stuff that is not in alternative medicine, while I get real constructive work done with the project. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 17:32, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Deletion of other points of view
MNH's recent edits appear to be expuinging points of view he doesn't agree are true. While he may have a case that they are not true, I would suggest that removing incorrect points of view is actually a bad idea if they are points of view that are commonly held. Removing something as a "lie" is inappropriate if it is a view that is sufficiently commonly held to mention, even if marked as false.

An example is this edit, in which a both common and notable view was removed (with an inaccurate edit summary - 19th century tabloid??) when it clearly belonged in the article, but in a different place.

While MNH's tremendous and dedicated energy is to be admired, I might suggest others may care to go through the removed content and replace portions as appropriate in the article. The article is not a one-person project with MNH the arbiter, after all. I shall be devoting some time to this myself, in the interest of a better article - David Gerard 23:37, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * There is no more commonly held opinion that alternative medicine works, and that proof by Western medical standards is not needed in order to prove it. So, once you open the door to putting false information into articles the size of this article will double overnight.  -- John Gohde 23:46, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * And you are seriously suggesting that I can legally put quotes by every famous person in alternative medicine into the medicine article, because they speak for a lot of people interested in alternative medicine.

 * Yes, why should I quote research when I can use quotes by Jack LaLanne? -- John Gohde 23:55, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You assume I hand out licenses for you to do something you yourself are calling appropriate? You aren't making any sense to me here. Is Jack LaLanne a pen-name for Richard Dawkins (whose quote was the example I was using)? - David Gerard 00:09, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Some people define alternative medicine in a rather more derogatory way. Richard Dawkins, professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, defines alternative medicine as "that set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested or consistently fail tests. First of all, we cannot deliberately put derogatory comments into encyclopedic articles that are supposed to have a NPOV.  Second, AM can be tested, is being tested, and some of it has been shown to be effective on a weekly basis.  If Dawkins said that recently he is both a kook and a liar, with a degree standing behind his attitude problem. Third, I do not deal with personalities.  I am merely doing some spring cleaning on this old irrelevant article.  Why people are whining about MNH editing is because they are fundamentally just whiners. My watchlist says I am watching some 150 articles.  And, the list keeps on growing.  -- John Gohde 00:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Tch! You may consider Dawkins a crank, but he is respected by a great many. You are indeed attempting to "spring clean" POVs you don't like - David Gerard 01:06, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * [personal attacks deleted] I did not attempt anything. I simply "did" a routine article clean up. -- John Gohde 05:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

So what was precisely wrong with the original presentation of a quote from Richard Dawkins?
''Some people define alternative medicine in a rather more derogatory way. Richard Dawkins, professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, defines alternative medicine as "that set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested or consistently fail tests.''

Per Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality Guidelines the above paragraph violates at least five (5) clearly established Wikipedian guidelines. -- John Gohde 15:35, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) SQG #1-No advocacy of any kind is permitted.
 * 2) *The quote clearly advocated the opponent's viewpoint, since the information provided was:
 * 3) in the first 3 paragraphs of the article,
 * 4) explicitly labeled as derogatory, and
 * 5) factually incorrect.
 * 6) SQG #2-Points of view can only be presented as points of view.
 * 7) *The quote clearly advocated the Dawkin's viewpoint as being a fact, rather than the nonsensical statement that it was.
 * 8) SQG #4-Introductory paragraphs are presented without controversy and are to the point.
 * 9) *It was originally in the first unlabel section of an article otherwise known as the introductory section.
 * 10) *It clearly added controversy to the definitional paragraphs.
 * 11) *Nor, was it to the point.
 * 12) SQG #7-Controversial assertions must be footnoted to sources of information.
 * 13) *The assertion was never footnoted, but was merely presented as fact.
 * 14) SQG #10-A footnote may reference a book, newspaper or magazine article, online web site, or a citation to a published research paper.
 * 15) *Individuals are not sources of information that can be cited. Books written by Dawkin are acceptable, but merely saying that Dawkin's said something is not a valid attribution.

 * The quote can be attributed to one of the essays in A Devil's Chaplain by Richard Dawkins (ISBN 0753817500), which also appeared as the foreword to John Diamond's book Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations (ISBN 0099428334). - MykReeve 15:52, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It still does not change the fact that the quote is making a obviously false and derogatory assertion. -- John Gohde 19:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Which is why it goes in "criticism." Fairly obviously. What part of this concept did you have difficulty with? You do need to learn to try to shift things to an appropriate section, rather than merely blithely delete them. Is this deletionist attitude appropriate? - David Gerard 19:26, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Deliberately quoting a known lie should be grounds for permanent bannishment. What part of this concept do you have difficulty with? I don't care who said a lie, it is still a lie.  And, the people who are deliberately putting fale information into articles under the pretense of a direct quote are de facto caught red handed in the act of advocacy. What part of this concept do you have difficulty with? Advocacy is prohibited! -- John Gohde 19:48, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I would have thought it fairly obvious that it goes in the "criticism" section. That's the bit you have trouble getting your head around. Does the entire idea of "alternative medicine" have critics? Yes, lots. Are some of them quite prominent? Yes, Dawkins counts. So they get mentioned. What you are doing is quite easily construed as advocacy by exclusion of opposing views - while I'm certain your motives are entirely pure, for your edits to remain they would need to be obviously sensible to readers well after the fact - David Gerard 19:54, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * I would have thought it is fairly obvious. Whgat is the bit that you have trouble getting into your head? Does the entire idea of "conventional medicine" have critics? Yes, lots. Are some of them quite prominent? Yes, most of them. Do all of their quotes belong in the article on medicine? Not a chance! Since they are not allowed, even though what they say is 100% correct the lies of Dawkins do not count. As long as criticism of conventional medicine in any form is NOT allowed in CAM articles, let alone in medicine your garbage is likewise not permitted. And, putting fale information into articles under the pretense of a direct quote is a de facto act of advocacy. What part of this concept do you have difficulty with? Advocacy is prohibited! -- John Gohde 21:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

People who are deliberately putting fale information into articles under the pretense of a direct quote are de facto caught red handed in the act of advocacy. What part of this concept do you have difficulty with? Advocacy is prohibited! And, I will personally deleted it and Revert it twice a day from now until the next century. -- John Gohde 20:00, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * But its not a lie is it?"that set of practices that cannot be tested" Certian form of treament that only promis to increase wellness and some kinds of faith healing ", refuse to be tested" psychic surgery for example "or consistently fail tests." Those that pass propely conduted tests stop being alt med. Geni 21:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I suggest that you read the comments from yesterday. -- John Gohde 21:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I did. You made a number of assurtions. Your claim of weekly tests is meaningless unless thoes tests are properly conducted.

 * [personal attacks deleted] -- John Gohde 21:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * What that the standards of the tests are low? Clearly you are reading different studies to the ones I read. POerhaps you could point me in the direction of these well conducted studies that show alt med to be effectiveGeni 21:44, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * What I learned this weekend from my research is that physical therapy is in fact classified as an alternative treatment by both physicians and thousands of research studies that show up in Medline with the cam[sb] selector for CAM. Support for alternative medicine is where you find it. -- John Gohde 01:29, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Try reading my newsletter. Reading is a wonderful thing.  It might actually educate you. -- John Gohde 23:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

SQG #11-Sources of information cited must be reliable and not idiosyncratic.

SQG #11 has been revised to cover this loop hole. It is taken from another direct quote.

The perfect Wikipedia article...

-- John Gohde 20:43, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
 * is well-documented. It has references. The references are not idiosyncratic to the author [of the article] but are the references that are most often used in the field. (See The perfect article)

 * It would be a terrible pity if you were to retreat to an attitude of throwing up legalisms instead of having an attitude of being willing to work to consensus. (e.g. when you quote a style guide - strictly advisory - as a reason for wholesale deletionism and state that you will pursue what you see as its decrees doggedly.) Such an attitude could only detract from the quality of your hard work on Wikipedia - David Gerard 21:57, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * [personal attacks deleted] I count a violation of six out of 12 guidelines for a total of 50%. [personal attacks deleted] -- John Gohde 23:45, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

 * NPOV includes the inclusion of viewpoints one considers hideously wrong, such as you feel about Dawkins. I'm sure we can take on each of your other edits in this manner with much productive discourse, leading to a workable consensus for all - David Gerard 00:00, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * NPOV also includes the deletion of total nonsense such as the Dawkins quote. -- John Gohde 00:05, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Your problem is that NPOV is not the total picture. [personal attacks deleted]  It is NPOV, Controversy, and Health Information that counts in CAM.  [personal attacks deleted] -- John Gohde 00:11, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I would be most interested in you detailing these six out of twelve guidelines - David Gerard 00:14, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * ??? Try reading the above comments! SQG #11 was in addition to the first 5 listed. -- John Gohde 00:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

The long process of restoring other points of view to the article
I'm starting on an effort to restore alternate points of view to the article. That one side considers them "wrong" and "lies" doesn't change the fact that they're notable points of view that exist and should therefore be mentioned in the relevant section.

I'm doing this by going back through the long, long, long edit history and restoring deletia wherever feasible (to an appropriate section) - I'm assuming the people who put that stuff in did so with the best interests of the article at heart, not in order to spread "lies," as per Assume good faith. "The ideal is to make articles acceptable to everyone."

If others feel this is a suitable task, I encourage them to do so as well. (If not, I'm sure it'll be apparent that I'm the only one.)

(I am assuming good faith on the part of MNH, something I have failed to do in the past. I apologise for this and will try harder.)

Would someone like to change the section headers to be labels rather than declarative statements of a point of view? The meaning need not change - only the didactic tone - David Gerard 09:48, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, there is nothing to restore, David, and the very long process of making this article a very good example of NPOV has already been active, did you notice, for a few months. Patience is to be credited to John. He already went into that long process, and there is bliss after his patience. Not that it is perfect, but he worked hard and did a great, simply great job - much unlike others here, people with a cop's mentality, whom I will not name again since we all know who they are. But we'd much appreciate a less stereotypical and more content-happy attitude from you. Just restore less, redirect less, and contribute more - content, that is. Contribute content, not discussions, and contribute it in a NPOV manner, as per Wiki policies. Thank you, and happy editing :O)

 * Please rest assured that I too am into an even longer process of ALWAYS re-restoring the NPOVs as they have been painfully gathered, hand picked and cherished by John, to say nothing about his incredible patience with you and his commendable, down-to-earth formulations.

 * Frankly, David, it's too easy to call for destruction and then claim reconstruction. It's more difficult, but also braver in the heart and deeper in the general direction of wisdom to build without destroying (forget Halliburton).

 * Last, the very definition of wisdom is to find ALTERNATIVES, including to your feigned restoration - you know, like in ALTERNATIVE medicine, healing without destroying first. I am here to watch you, knowing what your contributions were in the past :O) irismeister 11:48, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

 * What he's saying is that Iridology needs bit of restoration too - David Gerard 12:38, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Negative - what I'm saying is that wherever cops "perform" in medicine, doctors will never make police :O) - irismeister 12:46, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Theresa, stop being a Cop ! Immediately ! (second warning)

 * LOL. David is adding stuff back in the NH cut and you accuse him of destruction. How funny you are. theresa knott 11:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

~
 * Oh my, o my :O) Look who's here! You are under AC decreee prohibition to address to me as a cop. You are watched. You don't answer my messages to you. You don't stop messing around in health articles with devastatingly self-important "edits". You say you have nothing to say. Oups, I forgot - you just said you have plenty of time to waste. So I see :O)

If you have something to say contentwise, in medical articles, just go ahead. If you only want to insert your LOL viral code into my conversation with people, just shut up! - :O) irismeister 12:46, 2004 May 17 (UTC)
 * LOL viral code? then ROTFLMAO must be the mother of all viral codes. And yet it's so true. You know what's so funny? You don't want my commenting yet you choose to invite my comments by posting crap on my talk page. Strange behaviour indeed, unless you secretly enjoy me laughing at you. Go on admit it irismeister - you fancy me, don't you? theresa knott 13:30, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

 * But of course, sugar! It was love at first sight! Why did you waste so much time ? Took you SIX months to notice :O) Sadly, for the destiny of our burgeoning romance, this is ony a place for editing AM stuff. And I'm not available anyway. I am happily married, and have lots of kids and less and less time for you. For the sake of John's time, and even yours, my dear, go do some homework and let us do the real work here, will you ? Be the nice girl I know you are. And the next time you are a fancy London guide for us transoceanic savages, forget Bedford Street or I'll kick your retroviral code out of your policing or diverting AM "contributions" :O) - irismeister 13:58, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 6


text:
User talk:An~enwiki

Is there reason why someone is requesting the password for my account ? --An (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The Anime and Manga Newsletter #1
Number 1, September 10, 2010 The Anime and Manga Newsletter This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Anime and Manga. The Anime and Manga Newsletter aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global Anime and Manga News. If you wish to receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the Mailing List. This newsletter covers all Anime and Manga events of August 2010

Anime and Manga News : Older news
 * August 9, 2010 - A fact from Black Rock Shooter appears on the main page.
 * August 6, 2010 - Final Fantasy VII Advent Children undergoes a peer review.
 * August 5, 2010 - A fact from List of Baccano! characters appears on the main page.
 * August 4, 2010 - List of Digimon video games is promoted to featured list status.
 * August 2, 2010 - Wandering Son is a.

Requested articles Articles that have been requested to be created can be found at Anime and Manga and Seiyū.

Articles that have been requested to be merged can be found at WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force and Category:Anime and manga articles to be merged.

Articles that have requests for images can be found at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of anime and manga

Anime Premiered in August
 * MonHun Nikki Girigiri Airū-mura Airū Kiki Ippatsu - 2010-08-05

Anime Premiering in September
 * Battle Spirits: Brave - 2010-09-12
 * Pocket Monsters: Best Wishes! - 2010-09-23
 * MM! - 2010-09-26

Lists Requiring Help These are lists that were demoted from featured list status and need improvement to become FL quality again.
 * List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, see discussion
 * List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes, see discussion
 * List of Planetes episodes, see discussion
 * List of RahXephon media, see discussion

Articles Requiring Help

 * .hack//Sign, see discussion
 * Believers: Undersourced and contains original research
 * The Big O, see discussion
 * Bleach (manga), see discussion
 * Boogiepop series, see discussion
 * Death Note, see discussion
 * Fate/stay night, see discussion: MoS violations, excessive plot, undersourced, excessive non-free images, missing pertinent info, need for copyedit
 * Fist of the North Star, see discussion
 * Elfen Lied, see discussion: Heavily under-sourced with original research, lacking neutrality, excessive plot, missing basic information, need for copyedit
 * Giant Robo (OVA), see discussion
 * Golden Boy (manga), see discussion
 * Higurashi no Naku Koro ni, see discussion
 * Jump Square, see discussion: Under-sourced, MoS violations, needs general copyedit.
 * Loituma Girl, see discussion: Inadequate lead, under-sourced, need of general copyedit.
 * Kirby (character), see discussion
 * Planetes, see discussion: doesn't follow style, too much unsourced.
 * Sailor Jupiter, Sailor Mars & Sailor Mercury, see discussion (all 3 are under the same discussion)
 * Sailor Venus, see discussion: Needs copyediting and condensing prose.
 * Suzuka (manga), see discussion
 * X (manga), see discussion
 * Yoshitaka Amano, see discussion: Insufficient referencing, prose problems, insufficient lead, MoS violations

Candidate Articles Requiring Help

These are well written articles that need improvement to become FA quality.
 * Cowboy Bebop, see discussion
 * InuYasha, see discussion
 * Lupin III, see discussion
 * Naruto, see discussion
 * Strawberry Panic!, see discussion
 * Twin Spica, see discussion

Featured articles The following articles reached featured article (FA) status and should be used as references for work on other articles in order to bring them up to FA level.
 * Madlax
 * School Rumble
 * Shojo Beat
 * Tokyo Mew Mew

Featured lists
 * List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes
 * List of Ah! My Goddess episodes (season 1)
 * List of Asu no Yoichi! episodes
 * List of Black Lagoon episodes
 * List of Baccano! episodes
 * List of Bleach chapters
 * List of Bleach episodes
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 1)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 2)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 3)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 4)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 5)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 6)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 7)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 8)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 9)
 * List of Bleach episodes (season 10)
 * List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes
 * List of Claymore chapters
 * List of Claymore episodes
 * List of D.Gray-man chapters
 * List of D.Gray-man episodes
 * List of Devil May Cry episodes
 * List of Digimon video games
 * List of Fate/stay night episodes
 * List of FLCL episodes
 * List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters
 * List of Gantz chapters
 * List of Gunslinger Girl episodes
 * List of Hitohira episodes
 * List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl episodes
 * List of Kaze no Stigma episodes
 * List of Kingdom Hearts media
 * List of Last Exile episodes
 * List of Lupin III Part II episodes
 * List of Marmalade Boy chapters
 * List of Myself ; Yourself episodes
 * List of Naruto chapters (Part I)
 * List of Naruto chapters (Part II)
 * List of Naruto characters
 * List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1–2)
 * List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3–4)
 * List of Naruto manga volumes
 * List of Night Wizard episodes
 * List of Oh My Goddess! episodes
 * List of One Piece episodes (season 5)
 * List of One Piece video games
 * List of Popotan episodes
 * List of Popotan soundtracks
 * List of Rental Magica episodes
 * List of Soul Eater chapters
 * List of Tokyo Mew Mew chapters
 * List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters
 * List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes
 * List of Trinity Blood episodes
 * List of True Tears episodes
 * List of Tsukihime, Lunar Legend episodes
 * List of Vampire Knight episodes
 * List of Yotsuba&! chapters
 * List of Yozakura Quartet episodes
 * List of YuYu Hakusho episodes
 * List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1)
 * List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2)
 * List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3)
 * List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called An. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name An~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:An~enwiki


text:
Talk:Box

Harry Potter and boxes???
What exactly is that nonsense about Harry Potter or something under "etui"? pointless 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC) NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!! XBOX 360 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.197.21 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

box as quantity
why is a million called box? and a billion yard?
 * These surprising notions were asserted 14:12, 2004 May 17 by User:195.248.32.227, according to the history.
 * They are hard to rule out, since
 * million box billion yard
 * produces about a quarter million hits, but (in case you need reassurance) the first 30 of them are irrelevant. Anyone wanting to put any such thing in the article should bring  evidence rebutting the presumption of utter nonsense.
 * --Jerzy (t) 01:48, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

packaging industry
This is a detailed article about the past and future of the packaging industry. I thought its most closely related to this article.
 * The above comment, by User:Wk muriithi at 04:21, 2005 Mar 27 offers (i conclude after consulting the history and scratching my head) a newspaper article (the "This" and "detailed article" in question) as source which could be used in enhancing this talk page's article (the "this article" in question). Sounds like a good idea if there is useful content; IMO it would involve retitling Box.
 * --Jerzy (t) 01:48, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

snuff box
It appears that my complaint in a summary
 * Snuff box - dial back breathless "most distinguished and artistic forms" at least to admit Chinese box artistry

is probably directed at the 1911 EB rather than any of our editors. A lovely counterpoint to the EB's complaint about WP's coverage of Chinese art, no? --Jerzy (t) 01:48, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

tone of article
This is the most unintentionally amusing article I've read in ages. Is the acutely foppish content from the EB 1911 or from a box-fetishist editor? Also we have a ton of bizarre snuff info here which is scarcely box-related. Will have a go at removing the 'breathlessness'. About boxes. Jeez. --Air 11:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. It is pretty complicated. But I say we keep it that way, as it's quite amusing.

 * Imagine it read in the breathy tones of Brian Sewell.

Disambig
I moved some of the brief sections that were mainly a link and a definition to the box (disambiguation) page. RJFJR 19:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Famous boxes (?!?)
Are the boxes in Metal Gear Solid really famous? Or is that just the best which can be done? My suggestion is to re-title the section and go for something different for the content there. Perhaps mention Houdini —Gohst 03:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Cylindrical boxes?
I'm wondering what the name would be for this, a common type of container in Eastern Europe (or at least in Russia). Are they also called boxes, or do they have a special name? Esn 03:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A drum? Or a hatbox? Cheers, DWaterson 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Box certificates
I would like to see this article or a separate article explaining the information contained in box certificates. Sample link: http://www.boxshop.ca/box_certificate.php Pendragon39 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! -128.61.83.190 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

3 types of boxes are apple,squash,and peas.

Wikipedia boxes?
I'm trying to find a link to Wikipedia boxes, but can't. Couldn't one go in the article under "Related terms" or something?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Do you mean Userboxes?? And cross-namespace links to pages unrelated to the article subject don't normally go under the "See also" section per Manual of Style. However maybe a hatnote something along the lines of "You may be looking for Wikipedia Userboxes, click here" would be OK, if we can get consensus about that. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 18:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would the note better be in Boxes (disambiguation)?   Rlsheehan (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Box socks
Does anyone think box socks should be invented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.24.86 (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing
Saturday evening, being social, meet an interesting stranger. Searching around for conversation topics, I know she is on Wikipedia, so I tell her of my involvement and ask her questions about the topic. When discussing the subject of NPOV, I asked what NPOV meant to her when discussing a completely non-polarizing subject. She requested an example of a non-polarizing subject. Inspired by a Simpsons expert, I suggested the article "Box". Looking over the discussion, the ruling is that no, there hasn't been a polarization on the box article. This entitles me to one free ice cream sundae, I therefore thank you all. :)  CreedShandor  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreedShandor (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Plural Terminology
This article opens with "plural boxen", while many of the sections use the term "boxes". This inconsistency is noticeable and should be fixed, replacing "boxen" or "boxes" with the appropriate term. 66.235.42.84 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Glove box link is not to the right glove box
Glove box link is not to the right glove box73.243.250.179 (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * fixed Pkgx (talk)

Merger?
Box is a rambling article which is is really just a disambiguation page with mostly links to main articles. It needs to be cleaned up but, better yet, it should be merged into Box (disambiguation).

Please post comments at: Talk:Box (disambiguation). Pkgx (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No comments or disagreement to merging is taking place'Pkgx (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not in the best interest for the encyclopedia. The Banner  talk 13:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Welcome to the party but it is over. I am sorry you missed the three invitations:  proposal on Box, proposal on Box (disambiguation), and a proposal on the governing project: WikiProject Containers.

 * I made a good start at merging two confusing articles and asked for other editors to make further improvements. No improvements were offered, just large reverts of everything; no discussion.  Please explain.

 * We are back to two disambiguation pages, both of which are poorly written. If you want to make a positive contribution, please fix both of them.  If you do not want to make improvements, then let the rest of us make valid attempts.
 * Pkgx (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Please see my comments on Talk:Box (disambiguation). --Macrakis (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Box as container or package
This "Box" article is currently a mix of container information but also much other material on unrelated subjects and links. It would be best if Box was only related to the primary subjects of containers and  packages. All other box related links should be on the Box Disambiguation Page. if needed, we might have to rename Box as “Box (container)" to clarify the content to readers.  Comments?   Pkgx (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will start to move links unrelated to containers. The disambiguation page is a good home for them.  Pkgx (talk)
 * This article is now focusing on a box as a package. a shipping container, or a storage container. Some clean up is needed.  Additional material and references are needed.  Other editors are welcome to contribute.  Pkgx (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"Cake box" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cake_box&redirect=no Cake box] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Box


text:
Dennis Wardlow

Dennis Wardlow (born c. 1944) is a former mayor of Key West, Florida, having served on three occasions.

He is known for being the prime minister of the Conch Republic, the micronation that seceded from the United States on April 23, 1982, in protest over a United States Border Patrol blockade which severely damaged the tourism economy of the Florida Keys.

title: Dennis Wardlow


text:
Mazomba

Mazomba is a giant fish in the mythology of the Chaga people of Tanzania. It is also the name of a crater on Triton, a moon of Neptune.

title: Mazomba


text:
Ravgga

Ravgga is a fortune-telling fish god in Sami mythology.

title: Ravgga


text:
John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick

John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick, KB (1527(?) – 21 October 1554) was an English nobleman and the heir of John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland, leading minister and regent under King Edward VI from 1550–1553. As his father's career progressed, John Dudley respectively assumed his father's former titles, Viscount Lisle and Earl of Warwick. Interested in the arts and sciences, he was the dedicatee of several books by eminent scholars, both during his lifetime and posthumously. His marriage to the former Protector Somerset's eldest daughter, in the presence of the King and a magnificent setting, was a gesture of reconciliation between the young couple's fathers. However, their struggle for power flared up again and ended with the Duke of Somerset's execution. In July 1553, after King Edward's death, Dudley was one of the signatories of the letters patent that attempted to set Lady Jane Grey on the throne of England, and took arms against Mary Tudor, alongside his father. The short campaign did not see any military engagements and ended as the Duke of Northumberland and his son were taken prisoners at Cambridge. John Dudley the younger was condemned to death yet reprieved. He died shortly after his release from the Tower of London.

Education and court life
John Dudley was the third of thirteen children born to Sir John Dudley and Jane Guildford, daughter of Sir Edward Guildford. When John was born, his father was a young knight, son of the executed Edmund Dudley, councillor to Henry VII; in 1537 he became vice-admiral and later Lord Admiral. In 1542 he received his mother's title of Viscount Lisle. The elder John Dudley was a family man and happily married, as was noted by contemporaries and is evident from letters. The Dudleys moved in evangelical circles from the early 1530s, and their children were educated in Renaissance humanism and science by tutors and companions such as Roger Ascham, John Dee, and Thomas Wilson. Of the brothers, John in particular had scholarly and artistic leanings. He was the dedicatee of Walter Haddon's Cantabrigienses (1552) and Thomas Wilson's Arte of Rhetoricke [sic] (1553). As late as 1570, John Dee dedicated his Mathematicall Praeface to Euclid's Elements [sic] to the long-deceased young man's memory, praising his use of arithmetics and "hearty love to virtuous sciences". Dudley had his own small library with books in French, Italian and Latin as well as a Greek grammar, and "a tragedie in english of the unjust supremacie of the bushope of Rome" [sic]. John Dudley became his father's heir after his eldest brother Henry was killed in 1544 during the siege of Boulogne under King Henry VIII. At the coronation of Edward VI in 1547 he was made a Knight of the Bath. Some weeks into Edward's reign the new Privy Council awarded themselves a round of promotions based on Henry VIII's wishes, and the elder John Dudley was created Earl of Warwick, the younger assumed his father's old title of Viscount Lisle. The younger John Dudley and his brothers Ambrose and Robert frequently took part in tournaments and other court festivities. On 3 June 1550 he was married to Anne Seymour, eldest daughter of Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset and former Lord Protector of England. The marriage was a grand affair attended by the twelve-year-old King Edward at the palace of Sheen. According to his diary Edward had a lot of fun; he watched mock battles, masques, and there was "a fair dinner made", a great banquet. The match was to express the renewed amity between the young couple's fathers, who had been political rivals, but the peace would not last. The Earl of Warwick leading the English government since early 1550, Somerset began to plot his removal and was executed for felony in January 1552.

After King Edward, now fourteen, had raised his father to the dukedom of Northumberland in October 1551, John Dudley became styled Earl of Warwick. In April 1552 Warwick became Master of the Horse, a major position in the royal household normally held by more experienced men. In 1551 he travelled with a diplomatic mission to France. At one point he ran into financial difficulties, possibly due to bad company, as a knowing letter from his father to him reveals: I had thought you had had more discretion than to hurt yourself through fantasies or care, specially for such things as may be remedied and holpen. ... And therefore you should not hide from me your debts whatsoever it be ... send me word in any wise of the whole sum of your debts, for I and your mother will see them forthwith paid and whatsoever you do spend in the honest service of our master and for his honour, so you do not let wild and wanton men consume it, as I have been served in my days, you must think all is spent as it should be, and all that I have must be yours ... Your loving Father. Northumberland.

In January 1553, he was summoned to Parliament by a writ of acceleration as Earl of Warwick, so that he could attend the House of Lords. This he did, but made no impact, and it is even unclear whether the other peers allowed him to take part in debates.

In February 1553, Edward VI's half-sister Lady Mary visited London and was welcomed at the outskirts by the Earl of Warwick at the head of numerous gentlemen. It was a splendid occasion, Mary being received by the Lords of the Council "as if she had been Queen of England". Still without a proper income of his own, in the next month, Warwick received the wardship of his fourteen-year-old brother-in-law, Edward Seymour.

Downfall
In January 1553 the King became ill and by the beginning of June his condition was hopeless. For more than a year, the Imperial ambassador Jehan de Scheyfye had been convinced of Northumberland being engaged in some "mighty plot" to settle the Crown on his own head. Always looking out for signs as to this respect, he reported talk that the Duke was contemplating the divorce of his eldest son to marry him to Edward VI's half-sister Elizabeth. In fact, it was Warwick's youngest brother, Lord Guildford Dudley, who had recently been married. His bride was Lady Jane Grey. The potential importance of this and two simultaneous weddings escaped ambassador Jehan de Scheyfye. Lady Jane was to ascend the English throne after the King's death, according to Edward's will, headed "My Devise for the Succession", in which he bypassed his half-sisters, Mary and Elizabeth. The Earl of Warwick was among the hundred and two personages who signed the letters patent of 21 June, which were supposed to settle the Crown on Jane. When the Duke of Northumberland took arms against Mary Tudor on 14 July, his eldest son went with him.

They passed a week that saw no action in Cambridge and Bury St Edmunds, hearing on 20 July that the Council in London had declared for Mary. Staying at Cambridge, Northumberland himself proclaimed Mary Tudor as queen at the market place. Warwick was with him as he threw up his cap and "so laughed that the tears ran down his cheeks for grief." The city that had welcomed the Duke splendidly was nervous to please the new queen. A large group of townsmen and university scholars surrounded King's College to arrest the Duke, who was with his son lodged on the premises. In contrast to his father, Warwick resisted arrest. A letter from the Council arrived that everyman could go his way, so the Duke asked to be set free, "and so continued they all night [at liberty]". At dawn the Earl of Warwick "was booted ready to have ridden in the morning", and escape. It was too late, however, as the Earl of Arundel arrived to again arrest the Duke and his entourage. The prisoners returned riding side by side through London, the guards having difficulties protecting them against the hostile populace.

After a few days, almost all the Dudley family were imprisoned in the Tower. All the men were eventually attainted and condemned to death. Warwick was tried on 18 August 1553 in Westminster Hall, alongside his father and the Marquess of Northampton. Warwick's turn was last and he, unlike the other defendants, pleaded guilty immediately. After sentence was passed Northumberland asked: "that her Majesty may be gracious to my children ... considering they went by my commandment who am their father, and not of their own free wills". His execution was planned for 21 August at eight in the morning, however, it was suddenly cancelled; Northumberland was instead escorted to St Peter ad Vincula, where he publicly took the Catholic communion, forswearing his hitherto Protestant faith, in what was a great propaganda coup for the new, Catholic, government. Any hopes of a pardon were in vain for the Duke who, after short notice, was now to be beheaded the next day. An hour before his father's execution, the Earl of Warwick was likewise led to St Peter ad Vincula to receive the sacrament; he then returned to his prison cell.

From mid-September Warwick was allowed visits by his wife. The rebellion of Thomas Wyatt in February 1554 led to the executions of Jane Grey and her husband, Guildford Dudley. Warwick, Ambrose, Robert, and Henry Dudley remained imprisoned in a room of the Beauchamp Tower. They made carvings in the walls, Warwick engraving their heraldic devices with his name "IOHN DVDLI". During his confinement, Warwick was said to be "crazed for want of air". During 1554 Jane Dudley, Warwick's mother, and his brother-in-law, Henry Sidney, were busy befriending the Spanish nobles around the new king consort, Prince Philip of Spain, in England as well as in Spain. In October, Warwick and his brothers Robert and Henry were released due to their efforts, but Warwick died immediately afterwards at Henry Sidney's home, Penshurst, in Kent.

title: John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick


text:
User talk:Smallcog

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 14:18, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Nomination of SGML name for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SGML name is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/SGML name until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Quinxorin (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Your article Tost By Seán Ó Ríordáin
Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Tost By Seán Ó Ríordáin to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. Wgolf (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tost By Seán Ó Ríordáin

The article Tost By Seán Ó Ríordáin has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Text of poem. no references or evidence of notability. Not encyclopedic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tost By Seán Ó Ríordáin

A tag has been placed on Tost By Seán Ó Ríordáin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pam D  06:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The Slievecallan windfarm for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Slievecallan windfarm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Slievecallan windfarm until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. The Banner talk 14:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Smallcog


text: Talk:Downtown Disney (disambiguation)

title: Talk:Downtown Disney (disambiguation)