User talk:208.101.89.150

Welcome
Hello! I've noticed that you have edited Wikipedia without logging in to an account. I'm happy that you've been contributing. However, I urge you to create an account. Here is a list of the benefits of having an account:


 * You can create new pages
 * You can use watchlists
 * You can upload images
 * You can keep your account from being unfairly blocked if you share an IP address
 * You can use scripts to better fight annoying vandalism
 * After four days, you can edit semi-protected pages
 * After a while, you might be able to become an administrator

There are no cons to signing up for an account. In fact, there are more pros here! Signing up is completely free and you don't need to enter any personal information! Plus you can have a user page like mine! So, unless you can think of a con, sign up for an account right now! -- Levine2112 discuss 01:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Article RfC
See: Talk:Chiropractic_Canada -- Fyslee / talk 04:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

TIA for keeping it clean. We don't need to consider the user, only the edit. And Wp requires that we respect anonymity. 

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just don't do it
Anonymous user, do not 'out' users. This is a bannable offense and if I see it again, I will be forced to report it and I am quite sure your IP address will be blocked indefinitely. Dēmatt (chat)  02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dematt, an honorable chiro whom I admire. User:208.101.89.150, you have another user name here at Wikipedia. Please log in and use it instead of this IP. Please contact me by using my email and we can discuss this off-wiki. You have got several things wrong. -- Fyslee / talk 04:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
In reference to the above issue, I've blocked this IP for 31 hours. You've continued to use an editor's real name after being asked, and warned, not to do so. I'd suggest reconsidering how you approach this situation; it might be useful to talk to User:Dematt, either on-wiki or via email, and to peruse the guidelines on dispute resolution. I'm not commenting on the validity, or lack thereof, of some of your complaints, but it is simply not acceptable to continue using an editor's name after being asked and warned not to do so. MastCell Talk 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to talk to you.  Dēmatt  (chat)  01:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you want to be totally banned. Off-wiki attacks by editors here are bannable offenses. To make it worse it's not even true. -- Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 15:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
I know this edit may be controversial to you, so I wish to explain it. The reference does support the use of the phrase "tend to be members". No doubt about it, and it is probably true. The problem my edit addresses is related to the extremely turbulent history of precisely that special wording, which was the earlier version here. We finally settled on other wording (which I reverted to) and which has been accepted, without further challenges. The cited article is basically a partially adapted copy of portions of an earlier version (the contested one I just mentioned) of the chiropractic article. The use of "membership" terminology was extremely contested and we found an incontestable phrasing that has stood the test of time. I hope we don't get near that very long debacle again. Using a source that has its information from Wikipedia (obvious only to long term editors of this article) is always problematic, since Wikipedia doesn't allow itself to be used as a source at Wikipedia. This is a roundabout way in which contested content can end up back in Wikipedia, recreating earlier conflicts. I know you weren't aware of this, so I thought you deserved to know about it.

I also question that source's reliability, based on this statement, which is made without any evidence being presented, or that I have ever heard of confirmed by independent and recognized research:


 * "Although often aimed at a specific problem, chiropractic provides a 400 percent increase in resistance to sickness for those under regular care. This is achieved by removing blockages in the spine that prevent the body from staying well."

If we were to include that, based on that source, it would be a sourced statement, but from an unreliable source, thus disqualifying the statement and the source. To include such a statement we would have to have a better source, preferably multiple PubMed published references. I suspect that you too would object to that grandiose statement on two counts: (1) the undocumented "400 percent increase" claim, and (2) the claim for the existence of "blockages in the spine." That's all pure subluxationist lingo, which modern chiros usually hold at arm's length or totally reject. I know that a faithful columnist at Dynamic Chiropractic, G. Douglas Andersen, DC, DACBSP, CCN, certainly doesn't believe it:


 * "Where is the literature to support the "catastrophic effects" the vast majority of the people on this planet supposedly suffer because they are not receiving regular manipulations? Where are the insurance studies to prove that people who go to the chiropractor 15 or 20 times a year, whether they have pain or not, have fewer injuries, less illness, longer lives, or lower health care costs?"


 * "There is no scientific evidence that when you feel good chiropractic treatment can prevent or maintain anything. If you feel good and you chiropractor still wants to see you, get a second opinion before continuing care."

In response to a number of things, including this wild claim in a brochure by Tedd Koren:


 * "...that chiropractic patients have immune systems 200% greater than people who do not receive chiropractic;"

Doug has this to say:


 * "It is high time we admit there is nothing conservative, holistic or natural about endless care, creating addiction to manipulation, or making unsubstantiated, cure-all claims. On the contrary, an excellent argument can be made that the variety of tricks, techniques and claims still used by a large percentage of our profession to keep fully functional, asymptomatic people returning for care is fraudulent."

I suspect that you two would agree on many things. Doug is a high profile modern chiro who is very successful and gives chiropractic a good name. His articles (most from Dynamic Chiropractic) are well worth reading. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning
This edit to Talk:Chiropractic is a personal attack and therefore unacceptable - comment on contributions, not conributors or you will be blocked.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your edit summary "Mcrappy" - we don't talk about other contributors like that, and given you have a history of bad faith editing (including blocks) on this sort of page, I strongly suggest you cut it out now.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  05:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic College
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=188579773

The Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College website is not a reliabe reference. See WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. Thanks, Quack   Guru  17:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)