User talk:Homy

Homeopathy
Hi, maybe you can justify and defend some of your recent changes to the homeopathy article, many of which have been good additions? they will continue to get deleted by those opposed to such edits unless you defend them on the talk page. thanks Peter morrell 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. From your message I don't understand completely whether you agree with some changes I made. I don't know whether it makes a different if I defend myself in this regard, there is always a difference of opinions. I think those opponents might be opposing the whole sector homeopathy. The subject(s) added speak for itself, they are however a problem for the 'homeopathy is quack' group. Some people are not able to express themselves with arguments but only with fanatic behavior. The fact that subjects as 'clinical homeopathy' and 'complex homeopathy' or relativity and homeopathy don't exist proves my point. Which argument or subject needs defending you think ? Additions I made and were deleted see below. For more information about my vision, see my website homeopathy Homy.

Some possible additions
-- Homeopathy is relativity There is one principle which should be mentioned here, namely the consequences of special relativity. The combination of homeopathy and relativity seems counter-intuitive but as the earth is traveling through Space-time, mass itself contains dilutions or dilations of time, space and momentum. Diluting a homeopathic remedy is not a random act, but creating a relativistic frame where the ratio between the medium, the tool which is used and the target dilution becomes infinitely great. This could be called quantum potentation or relativistic potentation. Then the numbers mentioned above are even peanuts. See also Classical homeopathy -- Clinical homeopathy is a natural result of classical homeopathy. It is called clinical because it is very much directed to organs and pathological tissue while classical is more focused on the whole person. It is mostly used by physicians who have a clinic orientation or experience. The experienced classical homeopath will use 'clinical' in the case of severe pathology or disease. The main clinical homeopath is Dr. Douglas Borland, though he writes also about treating the constitution too. Therefore there is no clear separation between clinical and classical homeopathy, it is a matter of focus.

Complex homeopathy is a natural result of clinical homeopathy. Because there were many remedies to choose from to treat certain organs or pathological tissue, is was easier to put some or many remedies together in the hope the right remedy fits. Generally homeopathic and herbal remedies and all kind of potencies are mixed together. When herbal remedies are mixed, I don't want to give an opinion about that, but mixing homeopathic potencies is counter effective; each remedy has its own direction of energy and by repeating the remedy this will bring misbalance. ---

Hi again, yes I agree with all the changes you made [please find ways to put them back!] BUT as you said the science freaks detest homeopathy and those people who have interfered already are all in that category and one has only made [highly negative] contributions to the homeopathy in his whole year on wiki [and no other contribs]!! anyway, see how it develops and watch the "no more than 3 reverts rule" I wish you well. Peter morrell 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement. I only don't think those people are 'science freaks', real science is multicomponent. It doesn't exist only of measuring existing technical human components, but also developing holding theories of what does exist in human body and psyche, like homeopathy is a personal experience with millions of people. They like to talk about denial of reality, this behavior is what they mean with it. In psychology it is called 'projection'. Homy.

OK I sent you an email thru ur website so please check that...please find ways to put back what has been removed...you would be well advised to insert citations for any 'claims' you make as this will help others to follow the validity of your reasoning. It is basically a good article and the above material you added was a useful addition...pity that vandals and petty folks keep wrecking it...one has to simply find ways to compromise or to add back the good stuff. best Peter morrell 20:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Go blue!!
I have asked another user to contact you so you can appear blue instead of red...this will help you appear less of a newbie and more of an "old pro" as it were! he will contact you soon I guess. cheers Peter morrell 20:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I already did the redirect from your user page to your talk page. You may also want to read up on formatting pages as well as consensus building. You will find that many editors object to your changes. (i too may disagree with your edits and revert you until they have been discussed).  However, an easy way to avoid this unneccesary friction is to discuss things on the talk page before making controversial edits.  Keep your cool and you may well find that compromises are easier to establish than you might expect.  Trench wars usually end up being very frustrating.  I'm sure Peter can give you more advice in this area too. He will probably be a valuable collaborator for you too.  For starters see some of the links in the welcome message below. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! David D. (Talk) 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Thanks David. I have however doubts about signing my name. Doesn't this give a track so others can delete everything you wrote ? Homy
 * I really doubt that would occur, at least i have not seen that happen, even when people strongly disagree. Typically that sort of behaviour would get people blocked. As i said as long as you enter discussions being able to justify your changes and remain polite you will always have the backing of the community. You should try and use the talk pages as much as possible rather than entering into edit wars (See WP:3RR). Too many reversion on one article can get you blocked very quickly, as well as turning other editors against you.


 * It will always be harder for you to edit here since you are editing from the perspective of the minority view point. This is something that you should realise sooner not later. To be honest, given the nature of your edits to date, you are going to have people shout at you. My advice is to let others defend you. Getting into arguments is just NOT productive. You will be surprised to find (I hope) that even people with whom you disagree will come to your defense, if you stay calm.  It will also garner you much respect and open up avenues of discussion that will allow you to make your mark on articles.


 * Personally I think the signature is very important since it will facilitate your interactions with other users in wikipedia. i think you will find that if you sign your posts using four tidles (~) it makes it much easier to keep track of discussions.


 * You can also customise your signature to direct users straight to your talk page using the following wiki-markup Homy as a signature. You can do this by using the preferences option at the top of each wikipedia page. Here you can customise your signature to anything you like.  Currently have the default signature.  If you tick the 'raw signature' box and paste in the Homy code into the signature box you will get a signature with a hyper link to your talk page. i hope this gets you going. David D. (Talk) 22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again David. I'm not so talk'ative I rather write. I appreciate the positive response. I think however that the subject 'homeopathy' needs fine responds mere on the base of argument. When people like to express their emotions badly I think you are completely right. I'm a very peaceful person, only people sometimes feel attacted when I address a subject with a sharp view. Like this, --Homy 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

quantum and relivitiy
Generaly the use of the word quantum without at least say a page of equations to back it up suggests you lack a complete understanding of the subject.Using the words relativistic and quantum interchangeably isn't posible without some fairly fundimental rewriting of the systems probably starting by redfineing distance.Geni 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Relivity" can hardly be a subject at all. A whole page of equations don't prove the string theory either. Einstein simplified relativity in the end with E=mc2 The quantum level is just anther way for us limited humans to express reality then relativity does. By the way, distance is relative as the universe is subject to cosmological shift a form of Relativistic Doppler effect.<<<< Some people need a page of equatations? 'Distance' IS rewritten the moment someone makes a homeopathic remedy based on quantum or relativistic potentation. Even molecules redifine their distance every second due to relativistic effects. People who think the other doesn't understand a subject could be 'subjective' to Psychological projection. Homy


 * intersting set of words but very few of them make sense. For example "The quantum level is just anther way for us limited humans to express reality then relativity does" shows a complete failer to understand either subject. What is your degree in?Geni 22:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

'Another' excuse, I meant: "Using the term 'quantum level' is just another way for us limited humans to express reality then the term 'relativity' does." Which "MD", "master", "doctor", or "professor" in which field would convince everyone homeopathy is true science? Those titles are not relevant, the quality of healing abilties of the physician are. There rarely exist a master degree for homeopathy. Why ? Because governments tend to trust and are oriented at traditional dominating science over pioneering science, financial and judicial support is used for traditional medicine and academics.--Homy 23:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So you have no formal training in chemistry or physics at all. That's unsurprising. I can make up crazy science too - did you know that homeopathic remedies are actually inverted populations of water molecules? Potentization of the remedy results in the outer shell electrons of the water's hydrogen orbitals moving to a metastable higher energy level, which allows the water to form a substructure. Hey! That was fun! Who needs evidence when you've got lingo? T.J.C. 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are making some claims based on some very complex area of physics. It does not seem unreasonable to ask what your training in these areas is.Geni 00:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As said on top of this page, I do not comment on personal information. Conclusions about my person are therefore based on suggestion. Wikipedia is about contents. If I like I could publish information about myself, however I decide not to do this. The world is mostly centered around looks. As said Wikipedia is not about this, it is about what is behind the 'looks', real information.

I would like to react on subjects. The word subject relates to subjective. Every science does have subjective and objective information, both could be right, both could be wrong. An object for example is a car, a computer. Subjects for example are psychology, homeopathy, physics. Subjects therefore can not be seen, nor is evidence clear for everybody. Most objects can be seen, but still information about these enter the level of subjectivity. However the right information will prove itself in practice.

I higly regard the comments above as intelligent remarks, it should have a reason that these are placed here, a critical view on any subject is welcome. I think there is a scientist in everybody. It is a matter of focus whether someone decides to use those qualities, it might be a matter of low self esteem to think that only the known scientists know what everything is about, they are just specialists on their micro area or have a wide view of macro, but limits they have. The question is: Do you have the determination to make your point. The theory suggested could be true. There are experiments with dilution and water crystals. With some extra research this comment might deserve a place in Wiki.

The issue here is not: What is relativity ? OR what is quantum physics. OR How can I prove these subjects? It is a mere application. As half of the invented technical objects have integrated quantum physics you can not expect every inventor to reinvent quantum physics. They just apply the basics and concentrate on the theory they need. As I (personal !) named "quantum potentation" AND "relativistic potentation" and developed it further, I did not change the relativity theory or quantum physcics, I just applied exsting principles. Yet my conclusion is: Homeopathy IS relativity. The remedies which are a result prove itself in practice. This is my opinion and I hope you respect me for it. I realize this evokes further comments.


 * Well, it's almost a moot point, because Wikipedia doesn't allow self-published material, but... You say: Diluting a homeopathic remedy is not a random act, but creating a relativistic frame where the ratio between the medium, the tool which is used and the target dilution becomes infinitely great. Science is more than just providing a hypothetical statement and waiting for the Nobel Prize to roll in. For example:


 * Can you derive this 'ratio' mathematically? I mean, you say it goes to infinity, right? That indicates the use of a formal proof. So demonstrate it using the formal mathematics of quantum physics and relativity.
 * Alternatively, what observable evidence do you have to support this assertion?
 * What predictions do your model of homeopathy make that can be tested empirically? i.e. how could we disprove it, if it were false?
 * If you can't reasonably answer the above questions, your hypothesis has little scientific merit. T.J.C. 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this critical remark. See Five pillars Wikipedia: "we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view" or copyrights. I seemed to have missed something as I have the supposal that Wiki is all about self-published material.

You might use Euclidean mathemathics, use the Galilean transformation or Lorenz calculations, they all point to the same point, but it is just a logic conclusion. As you might probably know, the RELATIVISTIC formula E = m rel c&#0178;√(1-v&#0178;/c&#0178;) is applicable to each QUANTUM particle. If you call the to diluting substance name m1 and the medium m2 et cetera and divide the mass equally, according to the fist law of thermodynamics we get: E1 = E2. This is applicable when you should potentiate with steps of 1/2. You can figure it out from here, when you might calculate the speed (v) of a particle against the average speed of particles of the mass in rest when you use the Enskog equation. Don't forget factors like friction or so. Good luck. The outcome of those numbers don't prove much, only my point: Diluting a homeopathic remedy is not a random act, but creating a relativistic frame where the ratio between the medium, the tool which is used and the target dilution becomes infinitely great. This logic can not be denied !

"Observable evidence" is not just that what you can see. This belongs just to extroverted sensing. Introverted sensing is just as great. Each patient one gives a homeopathic remedy for example could experience sensations and symptoms which 'proves' the remedy does what is meant to. Asking for certain evidences proofs an orientation on classic science. Everyone is invited to participate in my homeopathic provings for empirically testings. Report to me and I am able to expand the Homeopathic Materia Medica.


 * Well, namedropping high school concepts like "Galilean transformation" (because adding vectors is SO complex) and saying "Good luck doing it yourself, don't forget to account for friction," isn't actually a mathematical proof (nor did your statements resemble anything coherent anyway), and you didn't actually provide any observable evidence for your theory, and you certainly didn't indicate how your theory could be disproven, I guess I'll just say I wish you luck getting that obviously rigorous treatment published in a peer-reviewed physics journal at some point in the near future. T.J.C. 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

From Mathematics: Mathematical concepts and theorems need not correspond to anything in the physical world. Insofar as a correspondence does exist, while mathematicians and physicists may select axioms and postulates that seem reasonable and intuitive, it is not necessary for the basic assumptions within an axiomatic system to be true in an empirical or physical sense. This leads to confusion on the part of those who assume that where mathematical concepts are named after or ostensibly correspond with aspects of reality (physics, economics, etc), they have a rigorous relationship with it. Such is simply not the case, and empirical testing of mathematical predictions is not a mathematical undertaking (see Mathematics as science above).

Good luck means you need to be a computer programmer to apply those formulas in a mathematical program. Good luck, means that for each dilution you may use different infinitive calculations, which still prove nothing. Homeopathic dilutions are reality whether people like it or not.--Homy 07:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Some citations I like:

I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, that is on continues structures...Then nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also of the rest of modern physics" Albert Einstein

Chris Hunter and I, have been investigating more complicated topologies, in which there are other possible singularities in the foliation of spacetime.....However, one can extend this classification scheme, to Euclidean metrics of any dimension. Stephen Hawking

I learned to distrust all physical concepts as the basis for a theory. Paul Dirac

Thus, the task is, not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees. Erwin Schrödinger Applied universal laws --Homy 16:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant
I have to say I find this 'discussion' largely irrelevant to homeopathy and very mysterious. Why not try to improve the actual article? what say you? thanks Peter morrell 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Peter. You are welcome. See Consensus. I can't do it alone as I handle my subjects better than my network abilities.--Homy 07:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well for example you CLAIM [above] that the article is incomplete' how? so instead of droning on endlessly about Einstein, who is marginal at best for most homeopaths, why not compose some specific paragraphs that might improve the article? your previous stuff about clinical and complex homeopathy is good but it needs [a] citations and [b] examples...do you follow? so let's do it! instead of just rambling...Peter morrell 07:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

--Homy 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A start
Above you write:
 * "The current version of Homeopathy is incomplete, not reflecting all versions or opinions of homeopathy."

A step in the right direction would be for you to outline what you think is missing.

You also write:
 * "The neutral reader can not see which argument is neutral, which reflecting homeopathic opinion and which argument oppose homeopathic opinions"

I'm not sure why you write this, it seems pretty obvious to me. Which bits do you think are ambiguous? It is very unusual to tag whether a particular sentence is neutral for or agaisnt a topic (i have never seen this done before), therefore i would suggest that those sentences which are ambiguous are rewritten. Do you have any you wish to start with? David D. (Talk) 07:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with David that you must be specific about what deficiencies there are in the article in your view and not just speak in vague general terms...what is missing and lets have a list and start working through it. Peter morrell 07:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Starting from the top?
 * Homeopathy is one type of alternative medicine, being particularly popular in Europe and India.[2][3] In the USA, [4] homeopathy is subject to regulation. In Europe regulations are tightened as well as a new Pharmacopoeia (Pharmeuropa) is implemented and watched by the EDQM.--Homy 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So what are your suggested changes, if any? Whats wrong with these sentences? David D. (Talk) 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean. The original is outdated. It is about nuance. Compare the original.--Homy 09:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO this is all rather silly. What is the point of copying the whole article here? why not proceed in the usual manner and insert additions piece by piece which people can then respond to positively or negatively and then thrash it out via discussion. Why does the whole article need overhaul? how is it outdated? please let's be serious. and specific. Peter morrell 09:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please highlight any changes to the below article in a new colour or italics, to identify somehow the changes as who is going to read through the whole thing? its crazy. thanks Peter morrell 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oke--Homy 10:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about homeopathy can be continued at User talk:Homy/homeopathy

Alt. Med. Systems Template
I'm going to do an infobox for homoeopathy to go at the bottom of the page, please leave the alt. med. template, thanks. --apers0n 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See: User:Apers0n/Temp1 and feel free to alter it to suit. It can be put in a template and then added to the bottom of all related articles. If you need a hand just shout. --apers0n 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave a reaction on your --apers0n --Homy 19:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the name of the homoeopathy template to - it still seems to work on the articles, but the name should really be altered on each of the pages it is on (I also moved the wikiquote template on homoeopathy to the top of the links)--apers0n 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've now replaced the User:Apers0n/Temp1 template name on all pages to . --apers0n 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This template is based on NCCAM classifications, as linked to in the template here, and as mentioned in the edit history here. Please respect this or suggest an alternative way of classifying the template. I am in the process of designing a template for Category:Biologically based therapies, of which herbal medicine is one, to add to the Category:CAM_navigational_boxes, and eventually to link all CAM therapies. You could add herbalism to the homoeopathy template if it is appropriate. --apers0n 09:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Homy 10:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point about the US/World view - I've been floundering around a bit with that westernised viewpoint. Your comment led me to look at the WHO website here - it may be better to rethink the whole process from scratch... --apers0n 00:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahnemann
The pictures are also on the commons, and can be used on en: Image:Hahnemann.jpg Image:Samuel_Hahnemann.png Image:Samuel_Hahnemann_1841.jpg --apers0n 10:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Homoeopathy template
After looking at your addition to the Homoeopathy template I was thinking of making a subcategory of Category:Homeopathy as Category:Homeopathic remedies, what do you think? And which type of Chamomile is Chamomilla remedy made from? --apers0n 08:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remedies could be included by adding a short section e.g. == Homoeopathic use of sulfur == on the existing page (e.g. Sulfur) to describe the remedy, with a reference to the Materia Medica Pura, and add them to the category.  --apers0n 08:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also there is already a subcategory of Category:Homeopathy - Category:Homeopaths --apers0n 08:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Oke, it is a good idea (categorie, medicines). Is it also possible to make a short link on the top right to the Topics in Homoeopathy. --Homy 11:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Do you mean a link on the top right of Template:Homoeopathy ? and if so, a link to which page? --apers0n 11:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In theory a link could be made from a small box on the right to the bottom of the page using an anchor (although it is unusual in Wikipedia), but each page would probably have to be designed individually. I don't think the reverse would work - a link from the bottom of the page to the top. --apers0n 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Fermi point (disambiguation)
Your recent edit to Fermi point (disambiguation) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 13:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

one section at a time
Glad to see you have taken this approach. It will be much more effective and you will see results. Inevitably you will have to compromise here and there but it will be constructive. As Tim mentioned it has to be collaborative otherwise it will not work. David D. (Talk) 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Jefffire 12:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you have made no moves to recify the mistake, you have been reported . Jefffire 12:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

invitation
Abridged talk 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your subpages on homeopathy on MfD
Various subpages of yours are on MfD Miscellany for deletion/Homy Homeopathy. In the eventuality of their deletion and you want to see them again leaver a message on my talk and I can recreate them. --Salix alba (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)