User talk:Cybordog

Caduceus
Hi there,

thanks for making your first edit to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, on this occasion, it doesn't meet the quality criteria that we set out for the encyclopaedia. The key tenets are that information MUST be based on reliable external sources (see WP:V and WP:CITE for more information), so we can't say things that we believe to be true, only things that we can prove from reliable third party sources like journal articles, books and newspaper articles (in that rough order for the most part).

In the case of your edit, your assertions about the caduceus are simply not true. The article already has good citations from scholarly articles which prove that the caduceus has only tangential association with medicine, and its use is on the basis of a historical misunderstanding. The genuine symbol of medicine is the Rod of Asclepius, and you can see at the article there how it developed.

Hope that helps, and doesn't put you off editing. Please let me know if you have any questions - you can reply on this page, or even better, just leave a message on my talk page here.

Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Owain,

Avery here, I will take the time to place refs to defend my assertion that the caduceus is a good and proper symbol of American Medicine when I get time. Your points on the historic matter although correct must be framed in the current day. Current day usage of the Caduceus as a symbol of Medicne in general abounds. Therefore it is appropriate to report that in fact the Symbol is associated appropriately with medicine in 2012.

Thanks Avery


 * I think the article already does this, and explains about usage. It also has good evidence to show that it primarily commercial entities that use it, rather than health professionals.  Also remember that this article is not about american medicine, but medicine worldwide.  The use of the caduceus is erroneous and american centric.  Quite apart from all that, you're claiming a biblical origin for the Caduceus, with no basis in academic literature that i've seen - you'll need some very strong evidence to support that claim.  The Rod of Asclepius, with its single snake, may have a biblical or part biblical origin, but i've not seen anything for the caduceus, and any link is based on the confusion between the symbols. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point about American medicine, I will be sure to put that in my future revision. The debate here is more about dictionaries in general and philosophy. I understand in England that there exists a prescriptive mentality rather than a descriptive philosophy concerning "proper" usage and information. This contrasted with American acceptance of "descriptive" and "prescriptive" definitions. Once a word or idea has a meaning between enough people and usage of that information has become accepted as truth then in that setting regardless of history there exists a new meaning. This is the update and point that I'm attempting to make in my revision. The article needs to include the fact that this symbol in spite of erroneous beginnings has become and will continue to be a representation of current day American Medicine.


 * Your argument above has nothing to do with the revision you are trying to make - you are trying to claim a biblical source for caduceus on no basis. The article already covers the use as a symbol, and the fact there is widespread acceptance, but your edit is all about the bible.  As you are ignoring WP:V and WP:CITE THIS IS VANDALISM.  It also contains a massive non-seqitur piece of logic - the snake was in the bible, therefore the snake here represents double knowledge.  What double knowledge? why does it mean that? What has the bible got to do with it? That is pure and simple original material (i hesitate to call it research, because there clearly isn't any), and banned under WP:NOR.


 * If you reinstate it again, I will be forced to ask for an admin block on your account. Please engage contructively on the talk page.  If you believe there is a biblical route then WP:PROVEIT.  Until you can prove it, it will stay removed.

VANDALISM is an intentional dissemination of wrong information. Wikipedia is open to anyone with internet access and is therefore at serious risk for unreviewed and biased information. Especially from PEOPLE LIKE YOU. While I can find minimal evidence of the 'hear say' story of the Caduceus as I revised, the story remains, however controversial in your mind, repeated from time to time. I'll search for better references on this. What I will not do is back down from my revisions asserting that it is appropriately used in the U.S. to symbolize medicine and healing. The very article itself is a reference for this assertion as well as to many Google, Yahoo, and other search engine pages to site. See http://www.endicott-studio.com/rdrm/forcaduc.html, http://www.crystalinks.com/caduceus.html, http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/caduceus.


 * The fact remains that you haven't made that assertion in the article, but instead tried to introduce what appears to be a made up history for the symbolism in the RoA/Caduceus. None of those articles you have linked are reliable sources as defined for Wikipedia.  If you can find a peer-reviewed journal article, publisher printed textbook, reputable magazine or newspaper or academic article which back up your insertions, then they can be included with my blessing.  I'll even help you format them properly in the article.  I'm not trying to fight with you over this, but I am trying to make sure the rules are enforced.  Please do read WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOR, they will help you understand the position on the encyclopaedia - we don't include what is true, only what we can prove to be true from reputable third party sources.  A lot of people find that constraining, but it has had long term beneficial effect for the accuracy and reputation of Wikipedia.  Hope that all makes sense.


 * What i'd suggest is that if you find an article that would be suitable, post a link to it on the talk page of the article (or here if you feel the need), and I can help you insert it in to the article properly. Also, just a minor thing, but did you know that you can (and should) sign your posts on talk pages, by writing four tildes ( ~ ) in your post?  Thanks OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Caduceus again
Hi there,

well its been a few months, but i'm afraid the rules haven't changed in the meantime.

Wikipedia does not report opinion, only what can sourced to a reputable third party source. The article cites numerous peer reviewed articles and scholarly textbooks which specifically say the the medical usage of the caduceus is erroneous. We have not found a single reputable source who says otherwise.

If you can find some reputable sources, then the claim can be re-evaluated, but for the time being it is just opinion, and opinion has no place here. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

--Owain take note- no refusal to debate, rather your rigid incorrect prescriptive spin-

Owy..... Buddy..... C'mon. Recognize the fact that my edit is an improvement that actually describes the current situation, regardless of the history. Wikipedia has no authority to prescribe usage, especially in the USA. You continue trying to prescribe due do historical errors that the caduceus not be worn or used as a symbol of medicine. That view is simply erroneous. I haven't edited anything in the article about the history of how we got here.

I've considered your stance, and revised my edit to reflect that history of use as well as the current continued use. I think the edit recognizes that point and appropriately notes ongoing use of the symbol.

I noted some links before but you didn't like them for whatever reason. I'll continue to replace my edit with accurate information whether you like it or not. Feel free to report your stance on the information, and I will defend mine.

My edit certainly didn't change the information, however it did improve its accuracy.

Avery


 * The prescriptive element is following the rules. Whatever is written here needs to be supported by reliable third party sources.  Pretty much every academic journal and book that we've found in relation to this topic mentions that the usage is (not was, or is historically, but is) incorrect.  A number of high profile organizations have in the relatively recent past changed from Caduceus to RoA, so its not a dead debate by any means. If you want to change you need to find proper, reputable academic or mainstream published sources - not just some pages off the internet OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not going to solve this by just reverting my edits every time - edit wars are tiresome and ultimately fairly pointless. You must follow the agreed Wikipedia processes, otherwise it is just wasting everyone's time and will get reverted.  So, to summarise again, what happened in the first instance was following WP:BRD which basically says that you made a bold edit (to change information), I disagreed so reverted it and then the process is to discuss before putting any information back in (keeping articles stable).


 * Anything that goes in the articles must accurately reflect reputable third party sources s per WP:V. In this case that is journals or academic textbooks (not just some sites on the internet) which meet WP:CITE.  Now, pretty much every article that we've found on the topic talks about it being erroneous, or mistaken, or some similar term, and that is reflected in the article as that is the balance of reputable sources.  The only way to change that is to find a similar number of sources which take the opposite view (it won't change based on a single source because that is undue weight).


 * This helps stop untrue information going on to the encyclopaedia - otherwise it would tell you that you can see the Great Wall of China from space (you can't) or any number of other 'facts' that someone 'heard somewhere' but which patently aren't true. The rules can be a bit of a pain, but they stop unreliable information going in.  You need to find some reputable sources if you want the information included, but having looked pretty hard, i'm reasonably sure you will struggle, because we've not found any real credible evidence of the other view.


 * I have tried several rewrites on the basis of your comments, but the constraint still exists that it must reflect the sources.


 * Please engage here, or on my talk page before reverting or making a similar edit. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Owain,

One only needs to look around on any general search engine, view many of the numerous organizations in the U.S. that use the Caduceus as a symbol of "medical establishment" or get on a mailing list of Healthcare organizations to quickly realize that my edit reflects the accurate description of usage for the Caduceus. We can go back and forth forever if you like. My edits are within the rules and I've even taken the time to educate you on the prescriptive vs. descriptive theory of definitions. Please stop undoing my accurate editing. As I stated before, my edits improve the accuracy of the information presented especially in the U.S. If you want to restrict your statements to U.K. meanings I'll drop it. If not I'll continue to keep it accurate. Cybordog (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Avery


 * I can see that you're persistent, but you're still not following the rules. Just 'looking at numerous organizations' isn't a reliable source - more reliable is the peer reviewed article already cited in the article which has taken the time to actually do an analysis of usage in the United States, and found that the majority of Health Care Professionals use the Rod of Asclepius as their symbol, whereas commercial organisations are marginally more likely to use the Caduceus.


 * I am well aware of the difference between prescriptive and descriptive, and Wikipedia is a descriptive medium, but one that only uses reliable sources (see WP:RS), not 'some stuff i found on the internet'. And in this case all the reliable academic sources come down on the side of the usage being erroneous.


 * There are now almost no professional bodies using the caduceus (with those that did having made a concious decision to switch on the basis of the error), along with most health care professionals, so the only group using this in the majority are commercial bodies (like corporate hospitals) for which the caduceus may have relevance as the symbol of the merchant. This doesn't make it the symbol of medicine, unless you can prove it with a reliable source.


 * I have tried several compromise wordings, but you've reverted them all. The only constructive route is to engage opn the article talk with some suggestions on alternative wordings, otherwise the edits are never going to stick. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you not bored of this now?
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

OK, I've tried to explain this multiple times. You can't say that the caduceus is accepted or appropriate, without suitable citations from reliable sources. Blogs, google searches and other pages that someone has put on the internet are NOT reliable sources. Peer reviewed journal articles, textbooks, and in some cases reliable mainstream news media are appropriate sources.

You haven't provided a single RELIABLE reference in all the time you've been making these same changes, and until you do, we will keep reverting. This means that it will NEVER look the way you want it to, as I or someone else usually change it back within a few hours.

All you are doing at the moment is wasting your own time, as well as mine an a couple of other editors, for no gain.

Provide some reliable sources for your assertions, or stop editing the articles.

OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * Please join the discussion at WP:AN3 and agree to stop your caduceus-related edit warring. Since you seem to be determined to ignore consensus, and you have continued for such a long period it is likely you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Caduceus
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Caduceus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, one more try
Right, this has been going on for some time, with the result being that you were recently blocked for 72 hours. I want to make sure you understand the issue, and how you can contribute. Your first action upon your block expiring was to again revert the two pages, which is the activity that had you blocked. This isn't my block, but undertaken by the admin staff. I can't speak for them, but my experience is that immediately repeating behaviour that got you blocked is only likely to mean a longer block (maybe even indefinite). Now, I don't want to have this happen if we can avoid it, so i'm going to try this one last time to explain to you the position and policy.

So as a summary:
 * You want to add an assertion that the caduceus is an appropriate symbol to represent medicine
 * You have also tried to assert a biblical origin for the caduceus, although this is not part of the current edit war
 * The article says the opposite - that the caduceus is not appropriate, and its use is erroneous
 * The article position is backed by more than a dozen reputable sources, including peer reviewed journal articles and textbooks
 * We have not been able to find any reputable source that describes the usage of the caduceus as appropriate, and you have not presented any reputable sources, although you did suggest three esoteric web pages, which don't meet the criteria for being reputable
 * Wikipedia policy requires that all information is cited from reputable sources, and you can read the specific policies at WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR.
 * This means that we will only include the position which is supported by the reputable literature
 * For these reasons, your edit cannot be used, because it is either a personal view, or is original research - neither of which is permitted

You need to work within these constraints, otherwise we can never include your work within the encyclopaedia. Your stated aim of "What I will not do is back down from my revisions asserting that it is appropriately used in the U.S. to symbolize medicine and healing." isn't helpful, and won't work on a project based on consensus.

Please engage here, on the article talk page, or on my talk page (whichever you prefer), to discuss and work on any compromise wording (although we've tried a couple of versions which you've reverted). If you just revert the edits again, I will return the case to the admins for more action.

I hope that is clear on the position. Please engage constructively - you'll find that Wikipedia is much more rewarding when your edits stick around because they agreed.

Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * Cybordog, if you continue in this manner it is likely that you will be indefinitely blocked. Please use talk pages to try to get support from others, instead of mechanically reverting back to your own preference on the Caduceus topic. EdJohnston (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)