User talk:IreverentReverend

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Mgm|(talk) 08:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Crank (person)
It seems like you and me and one or two other contributors have been keeping this page from the throes of VfD because the subject matter is not pleasant and too POV (see its talk page). That said, do you really mean that all of alternative medicine is quakery? For example. I recently visited my chiropractor for neck and sinus pain. The first words out of his mouth was: "When was the last time we had a dental exam?" .. Come to find out, an accident caused a hairline fracture in my right incisor which caused these sinus infections. I had it capped and had no problems since. Are you saying to me that this chiropractor is a quack? I plan to further qualify the entry concerning alternative medicine. Vonkje 16:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * well, after having a roommate whose first response to a cold or the flu was to go to the chiroprators, and watching Penn and Tellers Bullshit! episode on it, and given the fact that the American Medical Assosiation do not recognize them as valid treatment, I felt it was appropriate to add it. Back injuries reported to a Medical Doctor are not refured to a chiropractor, rather a Physical Therapist. Perhaps we could refur to that? "Chiroprators, esspecially when used to replace physical Therapy" or some such? IreverentReverend 20:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your patience on this. If this were something obscure and ludicrous, like ear candling (or who can forget Gene Ray's Time cube) this would be an easy edit.  The fact that so many people seek Chiropractic care will, if we are not careful, pit politics against science.  I cannot stand another loss for science.  That said, your latest entry is still a bit too broad brush, and yet I do not have anything obviously better.  The closest I have gotten on a wording for this entry might be: Chiropractors to the extent that they allow biotheistic beliefs to influence treatment. Anyway, I will sit on this for some time and not do anything and see if anyone else notices.  Vonkje 19:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will mull over an alternative wording for a day or so, and see if I can come up with a better shot than this. IreverentReverend 19:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I finished the edits by putting qualifiers on the entry for alternative medicine. Unfortunately, I could not find a place for energy psychology, since it is an agglomeration of modalities that effectively treat what they set out to treat (ie: acupuncture and certain forms of inflammation, massage therapy and relieving certain muscle aches both of which could more properly be mainstreamed into physical therapy), and more questionable practices which I will not dignify by mentioning them.  A more cynical reading of the pseudo-emergence of energy psychology might be an effort for questionable practices getting coattailed onto practices that are becoming mainstreamed.  Anyway, please let me know of any problems you might have with these edits. Vonkje 17:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason I included energy psychology was not that I personally felt it was a crank, but due to this line in the article about it "Most scientists, health professionals, skeptics and others consider energy psychology to be a pseudoscientific quack therapy, noting that there is no scientific evidence that healing can be achieved by it or that the claimed "energies" and their supposed pathways through the body even exist." I felt that it fit with this from the crank (person) page "person who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs.". I would like to have crank (person) list as many non-mainstream items as possible, especially anything that atttempts to come off as science or a valid medical treatment, that is, as yet not. I would like to copy these posts the the crank talk page, if you don't mind. I will wait for permission before doing so. IreverentReverend 20:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. I too was frustrated with not being able to fit energy "psychology" into this article.  Rather than being a figment of someone's untrained imagination, I personally see this as a marketing ploy akin to the practice of bundling drek in with stuff that is effective and respected.  What is the American Psychological Association's stance on this field?  Is there a government regulated service mark on the word "Psychology"?  There's one way to find out .. and that is to move all of these comments into Crank (person) to solicit wider input.  In short, I like your suggestion to do this but based on the comments already there, ... fasten your seatbelt!  Vonkje 19:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Environment vs Environmentalism.
Hello. You may be interested in the voting at Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 30 on whether Category:Environmentalism should be moved back to Category:Environment. Alan Liefting 08:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)