Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 7

message: Osteopathy in it's orginal form is and always will be alt med (or quackery depending on where you draw the line between the two) DO's don't really practice osteopathy any more which is why they have the same status (pretty much) as MD's. In my country osteopaths pratices something far closer to the orginal form and as such are very defintly alt med. There are also a number of people who practice the orginal form of osteopathy who are definetly in the alt med catigopry. As such the point is meaningless.
from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine
:The disambiguation is fine.  One thing, though.  In the United States, I think those that go to osteopathic schools get a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) degree and practice medicine without an M.D. degree.  If so, Doctor of Medicine should be rephrased a bit (not all physicians in the United States have an M.D.).  Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ksheka 17:37, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
The point is far from meaningless as you have just attacked osteopathy as quackery even though osteopathy is conventional medicine.  Speaks to the credibility of the attacker. -- John Gohde 10:45, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that. Kindly do not missrepsent what I say. I stated that in it's orginal form it is alt med or in the view of some poeple some people quackery. If you read on you will find that I defined Osteopathy both in it's orginal form  and how it is praticed in the uk as alt med.No would you be kind enough to adress my orginal points?Geni 11:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Osteopathy is still being attacked as alternative medicine.

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against Theresa Knott for her consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against Theresa Knott.  Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievances of your own. -- John Gohde 04:10, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments on Theresa Knott 

message: In an attempt at compromise, I have maintained TK's version of criticism and MNH's of support. I suggest that each user avoid editing the other section, as this has led to extreme POV in the past.
Most honest people call it a revert.  Sorry, to hear tha you don't!  You are not remotely interested in getting rid of extreme POV.  You just want to continue Tk's pollution.  Do you think that I am stupid?
The good thing about reverts is that there are 24 hours in the day to get rid of the garbage. TK's version of criticism is not acceptable to the alternative position on health, period.  It belongs in the trash can. We have reached agreement with WikiDoc's, but TK represents nobody, nor is her position in alignment with well established Wikipedian policy.  TK's position is not acceptable, period. -- John Gohde 13:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame that you think everyone is out to get you John. Calling Snowspinners attempt at compromise garbage, isn't very nice now is it? BTW I'm glad that you are feeling better. theresa knott 13:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  In an attempt at compromise, I have maintained TK's version of criticism and MNH's of support. I suggest that each user avoid editing the other section, as this has led to extreme POV in the past 

message: MNH: I noticed you'd deleted six critical references from the article altogether   , despite your edit summaries for each change saying "External links belong in the External Links section". As you obviously wouldn't just try to wipe out a point of view you don't like, this must have been an error. I've restored them for you.
I couldn't think of a good way to put these in the references at the end. If we can't sensibly list them in the references at the end of the article, we should leave them inline, as is the case with a tremendous number of other Wikipedia articles. Thanks! - David Gerard 12:01, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
:Slow people generally take a while to figure things out.  I am really impressed at your speed, David.  Keep up the good work.  Maybe there is hope for you yet.  Great job, David! -- John Gohde 16:13, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Move references if you must, don't just delete them

message: MNH has just made the following comment in the edit summary "(I found these quotes. I wrote the argument. I added them to the text. This is the original intro that I want for this argument.)"
John you don't seem to understand how this project works. You simply can't say "I want it like this". anyone can edit your text at anytime.  understand that you feel you have ownership over the stuff you add to an article but your feelings are not important to this project (niether are mine or anyone elses) It's hard I know to see you work editted without restraint but you have to either accept it, or leave wikipedia for a different, non collaborative type of project. Having said that I have no objection to the edit you made to the article. Your intro looks fine to me. It's your edit summary that has me worried. theresa knott 14:44, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr NH's latest edit summary