User:Barbara (WVS)/talk page archive 1

American Experience (season 13)

I wanted to let you know I reverted your edit on this article. All links about the film episodes should only link to articles about the film. If you inspect the other links, then you'll see this type of link.

If you have any knowledge about the film episode, then please create a stub or larger article to link to this episode. Mitchumch (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Methinks that your 'should only' is your own construct and reflects a POV and WP:OWN. There is no harm in including a wikilink to a biographical person with more notability than all the episodes of this television show put together. Besides, there are many movies about the Life of Stephen Foster, in fact, an article could even be written because so many films have been created on his life and music. Creating wikilinks are considered 'wikifying' and in every way, making a wl only improves the article.

Having said all that - you are a good editor and I totally believe you are acting in good faith. If I have caused you any uncomfortable-ness or distress, I would like to sincerely apologize. I rarely revert the edits of other editors, maybe 25 (update 4/15/2017 100) times out of 16,000 edits (as user Bfpage) I have made to the encyclopedia. Respectfully and with The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Linking episodes in an article list for television programs is a standard element of featured articles. I did not invent this standard. Please see Episodes in the Wikipedia:Featured lists.

To accommodate a wikilink to the subject of Stephen Foster a summary can be added to the episode via the section called "ShortSummary". Please write a brief summary there. You will see "WRITE A SHORT SUMMARY ABOUT FILM THAT INCLUDES A CITATION". That is the place to place that type of link. Mitchumch (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Temperance songs

Hello! Your submission of Temperance songs at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Male circumcision

Hi Barbara: Thanks again! I apologize for putting my first message on the wrong page. Male circumcision is an exceeding emotional issue with some males, especially those whom were circumcised. There are some editors with long knives here who would like to see all information detrimental to male circumcision suppressed, perhaps because of ethnicity. One has to be exceedingly careful to follow all rules because they will use the least excuse to delete material.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've noticed that most editors, not all, contribute to Wikipedia because, in fact, that actually have a point of view that they wish to express. Fortunately, the guidelines are to present both sides of the issue so even those on opposite sides of the fence can actually work together to improve articles. You caught my attention because you seemed to be treated in a less than courteous manner and I am always irritated by that. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays/New Year!

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Barbara(WVS), have a great holiday Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Late as usual! Thank you for this kind message.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

My revert to... you know

That was over a month ago! At least I can feign uninvolved here as it was a Huggle revert... Unlike some of the other thing on my watch list that would exasperate my mother if she were to see it. Thanks for your appreciation! Best Jim1138 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I SO appreciate your comment about things on your watchlist or editing history. I cringe to think what my friends would think about some of the stuff I edit. But, see I have this theory...and comment if you want. That the topics that seem 'way out there' as in terms of things you would not discuss with your mother, spouse, family and friends, are exactly the same topics that seemed to be sourced less vigorously and whose refs need to be checked. I looked at your editing history and found we have the same tendencies-if a statement seems, using common sense, a little unbelievable, well then sometimes the ref is misused. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC) and User:Bfpage

Inconsistent citation

Hey, there's an inconsistency in this edit you made to Rape: you link to "The Challenge of Defining Rape", but the other details of the added citation match "Regulating Sex", including the error-causing date included in the title ("Regulating Sex | 27 June 2015"). Can you please resolve the citation completely to one or the other? Thanks, {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I sure will, thanks for calling this to my attention. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Page number

Needed for this "In children, chest pain is often present.McMahon, Maureen (2011). Pediatrics a competency-based companion. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders/Elsevier. ISBN 978-1-4160-5350-7.

Also we try to use the term "person" rather than "patient" per WP:MEDMOS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The text is an online text, no page numbers are provided. I suppose you could call it a digital book and not really a copy of a printed book. I'll try my best to use person, but pediatric person doesn't seem to sound correct. There are many book references in the Asthma article without page numbers. When a page number is available, I will be sure to use it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am embarrassed to have missed your kind message, but thank you so much. The Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day, January 16

I thought you might be interested in joining this event: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2016.--Pharos (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for not acknowledging your kind message until now! See my red face of embarrassment? The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed thumbnail size

Hi, I noticed you adding some images with px. Please refer to WP:THUMBSIZE, which discourages this practice and explains why. In most cases, the default size (set by the user in their preferences) is the best choice, or upright for tall images. In a few exception cases, upright=multiplier may be used to make a thumbnail smaller or larger than the default size. I have fixed a few of the images you added. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess. I won't revert. I enlarged the image because the fracture points I was illustrating related to the content were difficult to see at the default size. Also, I am quite bold and realize that this editing practice opens me up to reversion since most editors are more comfortable with a stricter interpretation WP:THUMBNAILS. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The fixed size I removed in Chest pain in children was 200px. The initial default size pref for new registered users is 220px, and only a minority of users change it or are even aware that they can. Also 220px is the default size used for unregistered and logged out readers. So, for a large majority of readers, my removal increased the thumbnail size slightly. Anyway, if you wish to enlarge a thumbnail, the correct way is to use upright=n with n greater than 1 (upright=1.2 gives 20% larger than the default, etc.). Also bear in mind that these are in fact thumbnails for the actual full-size image, and it's not our objective to eliminate all (or even most) of the need to click-through for a better look. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morrison Foster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allegheny County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

I don't have any image for Chest pain in children. I will have that article in mind if an image will be available. Happy holidays! Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

YGM

--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Neonatal infection at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for all your work on women's health! Neonatal infection is fantastic. Best, Keilana (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a good feeling when collaboration works!!

Your tweaks to the lede (Neonatal infection) reminded me of the Johnny Nash song, "I Can See Clearly Now". [1] Atsme^📞📧 04:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind, encouraging words. I am embarrassed to see that I did not respond to your message in a timely manner and for that I apologize. Lately, most communication directed in my direction has been a notch or two below hostile, so I am reading your message exactly when I need it most. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Neonatal infection

On 18 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neonatal infection, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that as many as 3.3 million newborns die each year, of which 23.4% succumb to neonatal infection? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neonatal infection. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

List of childhood diseases and disorders

Hi, I noted that you placed the WVS tag on Talk:List of childhood diseases and disorders; if it's still your intention, I'd encourage that you consider creating Childhood diseases and disorders, and merely redirecting the list page. It seems as this is a better alternative, based on the immense scope of the list and possible overlap with other diseases. I myself (sadly) don't have the time to do a ton of content work, but I'm around if I could help you in anyway. Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 20:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for contacting me about this topic. Since so many articles already exist on Childhood diseases and disorders at this time, any article I create would only duplicate the effort that others have put into creating such content. The intent of the list is to pull together the diverse topics into one coherent listing of as many childhood diseases as I can. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Page numbers

Please remember these for textbooks. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have already replied to this very reasonable request in December. I have consulted two librarians over the matter and consulted an MLA stylebook and have confirmed that page numbers, when unsupplied by the source, are not required in a reference. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The verifiability policy says very explicitly that page numbers should be provided whenever possible. Otherwise, verification can become unnecessarily difficult. czar 00:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Norepinephrine

May I gently remind you of this review? I think I have addressed every point you raised. If it is helpful, you might be taking this process a bit more seriously than you need to. The GA process is deliberately designed to be lightweight and efficient. You aren't responsible for personally vouching for every aspect of the article, only for assessing whether the article overall deserves a "good" rating. The Featured Article process is much more intensive. Best regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

RTT cat

Am using this category for a specific project. Thus removed it from here [2] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

|} (You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Ping

Please take a look at w:ht:Zika whenever you have a few moments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Invitation

	Hello, Barbara (WVS). You are invited to join WikiProject Food and drink, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of food, drink and cuisine topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 09:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Barb! Just wanted to thank you for your work as a Visiting Scholar so far. I just read "Willie Has Gone To War"; I enjoy the larger images, as they're easier for me to read. If you need anything, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks! Seattle (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Power and control in abusive relationships

Just spotted this - User_talk:CaroleHenson#Power_and_control_in_abusive_relationships_2. Carole did Power_and_control_in_abusive_relationships#In_an_intimate_relationship. I did all the other sections. I dont think Carole has an interest in this article any more. Let me know if you have any ideas.--Penbat (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Irving Berlin songs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Irving Berlin songs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ibadibam (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hello Barbara (WVS),

Please do not bring disputes with other editors to the Teahouse, which is a place for inexperienced editors to ask questions about editing. You know the ropes, which is why you have your current position. If you do not like how Robert McClennon answered your earlier question, then his talk page is the proper place to discuss your concern. I think you knew that already. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of any disputes with other editors at this time. I questioned the response of two Teahouse hosts, not them personally. I have asked questions of Teahouse hosts in the past and they have gladly answered my good faith questions about editing. I do not know all the ropes and I don't know everything about editing. In many places that publicize the good work done in the Teahouse, emphasis is on getting an answer on editing questions. I won't waste your time by citing examples of this. If I have truly offended anyone, I sincerely apologize. My question about editing was answered, and for that I am grateful. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sunday June 5: Women in Jewish History Edit-a-thon

Sunday June 5, 12-5pm: Women in Jewish History Edit-a-thon

Join us for a full Sunday of social Wikipedia editing at the Center for Jewish History (drop-in any time!), during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles pertaining to Women in Jewish History. All are invited, with no specialized knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia editing experience required. Expanding coverage of Jewish women on Wikipedia makes these women and their creations discoverable, addresses the gender bias on Wikipedia in a positive way, and works to correct imbalances archival collecting practice and institutional projects that have historically silenced women's narratives. A training session on editing Wikipedia will be held at 12:30 pm. Experienced Wikipedians will be on-hand to assist throughout the day. Please bring your laptop and power cord; we will have library resources, WiFi, and a list of suggested topics on hand. Light refreshments will be provided. Make edits! Ask questions! Be bold! Sunday June 5 Women in Jewish History Edit-a-thon (Participants have to bring their own laptops and power cords). Time: 12:00 pm – 5:00 pm Location: Center for Jewish History, 15 West 16th Street (between 5th and 6th Avenues), New York City, New York 10011 Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. Stay tuned / sign up early for our June 15 WikiWednesday and other upcoming events.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

A kitten for you!

I bet this kitten has a fraudulent degree. ;) But you have been amazing at helping us at Pitt understand and approach Wikipedia. Can't wait to Redd-up-a-thon with you!

TheLeaper (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

June 15: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday June 15, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan. Featuring special guest presentations on Wikipedia Asian Month and Wikipedia Club at Ohio State University. We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants. We will also follow up on plans for recent (Art+Feminism! AfroCrowd!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities. We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects. After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery! Wednesday June 15 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com). 7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. Stay tuned / sign up early for our AfroCrowd June calendar, June 29 Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA, and July 15 Wiknic @ Central Park, among other upcoming events.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Some stroopwafels for you!

thanks for the talk, we need to recruit some women's health editors. Arcituno (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Wednesday June 29: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

Wednesday June 29, 6-8:30pm: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA

Join us for an evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Museum of Modern Art Library's second annual Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon, during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles pertaining to LGBT art, culture and history. All are invited, with no specialized knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia editing experience required. Also featuring a lightning talk by CUNY students at the La Guardia and Wagner Archives on a project to document local 1980s HIV/AIDS activism on Wikipedia. Experienced Wikipedians will be on-hand to assist throughout the day. Please bring your laptop and power cord; we will have library resources, WiFi, and a list of suggested topics on hand. Wednesday June 29 Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA (Participants have to bring their own laptops and power cords). Time: 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm Location: Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Education and Research Building at MoMA, 4 West 54 Street - between 5th/6th Ave, New York, NY 10019 Please note that this entrance is one block north of the main 53rd Street entrance, closer to 5th Avenue. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. Stay tuned / sign up early for our Sunday July 10 Wiknic in Central Park and other upcoming events.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Reply

DYK for Uterine microbiome

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

References to Stedman's

Hi Barbara,

I've assessed a few of the articles you've worked on and in 2-3 of them I found references to "Stedman's medical dictionary" (just that text in the reference). I don't know if you're still sourcing it like that (some of the edits are from bfpage or from a while ago), but I think the accepted pattern is to cite the chapter + the year or edition. Either way, it's not a huge deal but I wanted to you be aware. Thanks, Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there a tool to help just show references that an editor has made? Plus, I'm not exactly sure that a dictionary has chapters. I'll look into it. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's a specific tool. I can point to the references I saw. I'm also not sure how to cite Stedman's. After seeing your citations of it, I looked around for other citations of the same work and found more specific citations (or at least what appeared to be more specific). Thanks for looking into it. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

		Warning!
		The Arbitration Committee has authorized discretionary sanctions to be used for pages that even smell of supplements and Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have barely edited. We will make you regret the day you even attempted to edit the aforementioned article. Just who do you think you are? The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation[how's that being bold?] designed to minimize prevent the improvement of many articles on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. So even if you make one tiny copy edit to a topic considered foo, This could mean that uninvolved[I have always wondered how an uninvolved administrator would react so quickly to such an benign edit] administrators can[and will] impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, crazy essays, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you, especially you, of sanctions that are authorized for the topic you are editing. Unless you want more scary templates like this on your talk page, please familiarize yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Have a nice day and don't step in the Foo.

FYI

Wikipedia has been here for well over a decade, and through most of that time fans of supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM) have tried to change our content to reflect the world as they view it, rather than as objective science views it. Over the years we have lost patience with this. Years ago we would debate endlessly with homeopaths, creationists and other pseudoscience proponents. Now we don't. There's nothing new to say, and reiterating the same arguments time after time is simply boring.

If you want to contribute to our articles on SCAM, read the talk page archives first. Piling in with comments, proposals or demands that have been addressed dozens of times, will get you slapped down, just because by now we're bored with it. Our policies follow scientific consensus, and this is entirely by design (see Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans). You cite the existence of NCCIH as "evidence" that DHS takes SCAM seriously, but ou appear to be unaware of crucial and relevant facts. Two that I would highlight: First, NCCIH (formerly NCCAM, formerly the Office of Alternative Medicine) exists because a proponent of SCAM lobbied for it. Second, despite the bilions iot has spent, it has failed to validate a single alternative treatment. Not one.

Google Minchin's Law. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I know all that. I've read all that. Sorry to bore you. You have no idea how skilled I am in inducing boredom even off wiki. (Why bother answering if I bore you - save your keystrokes) And I am pretty sure those that came to consensus over all that foo edit in good faith and abide by five or even six pillars...and they have degrees, are MDs and have edit counts up into the 100,000s. I am sitting here with medical textbooks that say otherwise. What is a soul to do? I do have one question, though - are you now saying that a .gov website on health content is not a MEDR source?

You know what my textbooks say? - an ice pack is a complementary treatment along with ibuprofen to treat a sprained ankle. I would say that if my medical textbook states that the combination of ice and ibuprofen is effective, this is a validation, n'est pas? Scary templates will keep me away. I don't like being blocked for adding well-sourced, MEDR-compliant content.Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Ha! I know that feeling.

So, in the beginning there was "alternative medicine", i.e. that which is either not proven to work or is definitively proven not to work. Everyone understood that but the woo-mongers were not happy at being excluded by the "alternative" brand so they invented "complementary and alternative medicine"; by doing this they sought to achieve a halo effect from legitimate complementary treatments. As a branding exercise that worked well, but still placed it outside the mainstream and of course homeopathy plus massage is still bullshit plus non-bullshit. So they rebranded again to "integrative medicine" - this has the obvious advantage of honesty, since what they ave always wanted is to put bullshit into the mainstream, but as has been pointed out, if you integrate cow pie with apple pie, it does not improve the apple pie one bit. Branding and labelling aside the problem has never changed. There is a group of practitioners who do not accept scientific standards of evidence, because these standards show that the practitioners are wrong.

The attempt to cast valid interventions such as massage, diet, physiotherapy and so on as part of the "integrative" world, and then package this so you can only get the whole bundle, so dietary interventions carry an implicit validation of outright nonsense, is a stunning success for postmodernism, but an appalling outcome for patients. It means homeopaths, reiki practitoners, naturopaths and similar charlatans are actually given access to patients in real, highly regarded institutions. But nothing changes in reality: the fact that a naturopath is a licensed primary care provider does not validate the hiodge-podge of quackery that is naturopathy, and does not render the farcical training they received, a fit basis for medical practice.

We call it the age of endarkenment. And the study of this nonsense is known as quackademic medicine.

Ultimately, Isaac Asimov nailed this:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

In medicine, it ain't. You can use coffee enemas and apricot kernels instead of chemo if you like, but cancer is not easily fooled and the result will be a painful death from untreated disease.

Wikipedia sticks to empirically verified fact. Quacks hate that, and it's really hard to argue against it without putting yourself in the same category as all the quacks who have come and gone over the years. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

You must not have read any of the content that I've donated to the encyclopedia. I don't have an agenda, and I want the best oncologist in the city of Pittsburgh if I need her, thank you very much. Something has happened to you...WP wants veracity. Hopefully truth is part of that. I'm not sure about the quacks, but no one could read the above essay without coming to the conclusion that this is a heated topic for you. Good thing we are on my talk page, though the page views here have jumped exponentially. And just because my textbook says that putting an ice pack on my ankle to reduce pain doesn't make me a quack or not intellectual. It looks like there is an 'us' and 'them'. I embrace the term 'quackedemic' and if there are enough references, it would make a great topic for an article. I don't want to egg you on, distress is not my goal and I am walking away waving my white flag. One more reply is what you will get from me.

Michin's Law? Over the MEDR content that I have? Can I disprove homeopathy by citing one guys blog? ...you sent me to a blog? You definitely have not read anything I have written. Happy Holidays and the Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Science Based Medicine is not "one guys blog", it's a group site written by a number of scientists and doctors who specialise in the investigation of quackery. There are a number of such sites, the best known of which is Quackwatch.

No, I am not saying you are boring me. If you were, I'd not bother writing. What I am saying is that after years of attempts to change the tone of articles on quackery, the community is bored by such debates. I believe someone brought a new argument to one in about 2007, but I could be wrong about that. I am reading what you are writing, but text does not carry all the nuances of face to face communication, so I could easily be missing something.

I am pointing out the difference between complementary and alternative therapies. Complementary therapies are valid, and were always part of the mainstream. No special efforts were ever needed to promote them, they have always been there. Ice packs were always used. Alternative therapies are a hodge-podge of old and new. Proponents put in a lot of work to try to get them into mainstream practice, especially by exerting political pressure. This is necessary because they cannot make their own way in. Medicine accepts or rejects treatments based on objective tests, alternative therapies fail such tests. In fact most alternative therapies are becoming less likely to be accepted, as we get better at distinguishing between bias and real effects. And one of the ways proponents of alternative therapies try to boost their beliefs, is by trying to change Wikipedia. Advancing the same arguments they do, puts you in the same group. That's not a good place to be.

An ice pack is not alternative. It never was. Homeopathy is alternative. It is also abject nonsense on a stick. Minchin’s Law posits that there is no alternative medicine that provably works, because any alternative medicine which provably works, is by definition no longer alternative.

By definition”, I begin

“Alternative Medicine”, I continue

“Has either not been proved to work,

Or been proved not to work.

You know what they call “alternative medicine”

That’s been proved to work?

Medicine.”

Tim Minchin - Storm.

It is a heated topic for me because I am am passionate about the accuracy of Wikipedia. Accuracy means not pretending something is valid when it isn't. It's an important public service. I am pretty confident you're also passionate about accuracy, hence I am talking to you. Feel free to tell me to get lost if you're not interested, that's just how it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I see now. The way you and the other foo fighters can do what you do is that you have all changed the definition of "complementary" and "alternative". Seriously, something stops being "complementary" or "alternative" because now it works? Well the definitions I have from MEDR sources are different. Just because something works doesn't mean that it has stopped being complementary. Physicians prescribe "complementary" and "alternative" treatments. They write about it in the graduate level texts along with the Nurses. I hesitate to mention this because I am the kind of person who, when I see someone take some homeopathic product off the shelf, I go up to them and tell them how it is supposed to work (but can't). It actually has a placebo effect. Another story, I'm waiting at the pharmacy counter waiting for my meds and I see a box of Rogaine on the counter. I pick it up and read about the studies, its on the package, or was on the package. 11% of men who received a placebo grew hair. My nursing texts tell me that a complementary treatment for reducing pain levels is prayer. There is evidence-based documentation of this.

The watchdog-foo fighters are an embarrassment to me as an editor of the encyclopedia. The page that I edited that earned me a template from Jytdog has some kind of snarly disclaimer on the top of the article. If 10-15% of the American people employ "complementary" or "alternative" treatments regularly (according to my textbooks on my desk right here) and are pleased with the results, and then they come to Wikipedia they will think WE are the foo-pushers because they have seen this stuff work. This whole mess is going to backfire on all of us, even though we are accurate. I've seen some of it work, I've seen it prescribed, I do these treatments in the hospital believing that it won't do a bit of good...and I am wrong. Personal experience counts for nothing, I know that. At least you all should change the nasty tone you use on your crusades to discourage people from using these treatments. You and the others will lose credibility-I haven't taken a look at the French and German wikipedias, but I bet there isn't a posse of editors throwing around nasty, scary templates on talk pages when they talk about peppermint tea. Here is an experiment I dare you to do, if you aren't already a nasty person it will work. Cut and paste some of fringy articles into a text reader and listen to it. You foo-ers have a tone problem.§Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk)

ps-you better take a look at peppermint tea it really does have clinical content in it. The Germans don't have an article on peppermint tea, but the Brazilians do.

As someone writing about health in WP you should definitely read and understand Correlation is not causation and Anecdotal evidence. People do things all the time and something happens afterwards, and they think "the second thing happened because of the first thing!". That is one of things that makes editing about health in WP hard, and I talk about it some in WP:Why MEDRS?, in the section A lot of people have strong opinions about health-related matters. It is one reason we try so hard to make sure MEDRS is used consistently and well. And we try to explain why, all the time.

But if WP being reality-based embarrasses you, this is probably not the place for you, and you probably should not associate yourself with it.

Bottom line, if you keep adding bad content to WP it will keep being deleted, and people will keep asking you not to do it, and if you still keeping doing it and establish a pattern of doing that, the community will take some kind of action. The notice I gave you, notified you of discretionary sanctions, which the community put in place on topics where we have consistent disruptive behavior and people who just won't listen. That is what DS are for. That is how things go here. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the party on my talkpage. Did you bring a template? Not the place for me, eh. Now that isn't a nice thing to say, is it?. Especially on my own talk page. Sorry I'm not going anywhere soon. I don't add bad content...how funny. Why do I get so many reading assignments from you. Happy Holidays,

Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Eh? No, those always were the definitions of complementary and alternative. Complementary therapies are therapies which complement standard medical care. They have always existed and always been part of the overall provision of medical care. Therapies come and go, but fundamentally that's the categorical definition.

Similarly, the categorical definition of alternative medicine is that which is not part of evidence-based practice. Why else would it be alternative? The term was coined in the early days of evidence based medicine, it was always a reference to those things that are not part of the reality-based medical curriculum.

There is a third kind of thing, fringe medicine. For example, giving people long-term antibiotics for a condition which is claimed to be caused by borrelia spirochetes but where there is no pathological evidence of their presence, could be argued as fringe (though in my view it's frank quackery).

The point is that an ice pack working does not validate any part of alternative medicine, because it was never alternative - but this is precisely what fans of SCAM are trying to do through their successive rebrandings. They are trying to create a mindste where the efficacy of some uncontroversial complementary technique - massage, say - is taken by the patient as validation of a whole slew of things that are simply bullshit. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Believe it or not I pretty much agree with you. But the party is over. Why are you blanking some of the articles I have created? And why do you show up with two different usernames?

Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Nomination of Marion Foster Welch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marion Foster Welch 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Foster Welch 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 notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been watching the goings-on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Foster Welch. If you'd like to discuss notability and deletion, please let me know. I'll be back in town the first week of January and would be happy to meet up with you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

chrissy greetings

Proposed deletion of Stephen Foster's sketchbook

The article Stephen Foster's sketchbook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This notebook doesn't appear notable in and of itself - it is not widely covered in the literature that I have been able to find

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Barbara (WVS), may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)