User talk:JRBC1

Welcome
Hello, JRBC1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. 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! Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Edit Summaries
Please use edit summaries to say what you are doing in an edit, they help other editors understand. See WP:ES. Regards, AriDemo (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Large Castle Dynamo 4.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Large Castle Dynamo 4.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 04:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This image can also be seen in the 1893 'Electrical Review Volume 32' page 625. Its authorship is unknown, and under the UK Copyright Act of 1988 would therefore remain in force for 70 years from the date of publication, i.e. until the end of 1963. I hope this clarifies your enquiry. Thank you.

You've got mail!
— Theopolisme ( talk )  10:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Israel, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Large Castle Dynamo 4.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Large Castle Dynamo 4.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sfan00 I'm not sure why you deleted the image of the Large Castle Dynamo. It is: a) valid image of one of J.H. Holmes & Co's products b) long out of copyright c) was from my family's company (J. H. Holmes & Co), where my great-grandfather (Theodore Holmes) and great-great-uncle (John Henry Holmes) were Directors.

Please reinstate this image. Thank you.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

 * Hello Tgeorgescu,
 * Thank you for your message.
 * I was a little surprised to receive your message as I had just made a few minor edits to this page which is of interest to me on Rolfing. I have been under the impression that Wikpedia was a neutral space, and is not driven by particular interests. However I was unsettled to see someone delete my few changes so rapidly, including a reference to the work of the well respected Harvard physician Bessel van der Kolk which is relevant to Rolfing. This was all removed with no good reason, and this highly rapid deletion of my few edits made me wonder who was behind doing this.  McSly wrote: "non neutral, incorrect changes" - which has no basis and is untruthful.
 * Request No. 1: When I make relevant edits like this, will you kindly investigate and take action against McSly who was essentially vandalising them on an unscientiic basis. Thank you.
 * The current Wikipedia page for Rolfing struck me as having been written in quite a biased manner, seeking to discredit Rolfing to a high degree, rather than to simply inform people about the basis for Rolfing, and what it does. As another example, I noticed at its Wikipedia page that Ida Rolf has a PhD, and I included this at the Rolfing Wikipedia page. During the time I have bben typing this message to you, a user called Roxy the dog has also deleted this edit!  This shows obvious bias and vandalism.  It is a fact that Ida Rolf had a PhD, so why would somebody remove it, except as an act of vandalism?  It seems there are particular interests at work here trying to ensure that Rolfing is put in a bad light.
 * Request No. 2: will you kindly take action against user Roxy the dog for vandalism of this page.
 * I am a genuine private Wikpedia user, who simply wishes to add some useful information and balance the Rolfing page more. Users like McSly and Roxy the dog (are they even different people?) seem to have a vested interest in biasing the page to his or her own agenda, and is vandalising the page in doing so.
 * Thank you and please let me know if and when you have been able to take action against these users for vandalism.
 * John R Chamberlain JRBC1 JRBC1 (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You've been here a while, so you should be already aware that accusing editors of being sock-puppets - even obliquely "(are they even different people?)" - is a serious matter, and unless you have some evidence of the case, it would be wise to strike that comment and reconsider. Two people disagreeing with your edits is not evidence of sock-puppetry.  With regard to the inclusion of PhD - see MOS:PHD.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Relocated from my userpage
Hi Chaheel I saw your message, which I found for some reason diverting away from the main issue of other users deleting my quite small and valid edits.

For some reason your message stopped when you started to talk about a deletion of my inclusion of Ida Rolf having a PhD.

Please complete your train of thought about this.

I am not a regular user of wikipedia so I find your comment about "you've been here for a while" an unjust reflection and not relevant to the deletions.

You also did not address the fact that the deleters quite improperly said that my edits were incorrect or innacurate when they were fully accurate - so they were indeed innacurate and vandalising.

Please kindly keep in mind and address the main points of my concern (as opposed to finding something against me), bearing in mind it was my edits which got deleted and not the other way around.

Thank you
 * Firstly, as per my edit summary - please continue discussion where started, rather than on my userpage. I have no real interest in engaging in WP:FRINGE, which is why I limited my involvement to your behaviour.  You first registered here on Wiki back in 2010, and although you've only got 250+ edits, that's still long enough to be aware of basic rules and etiquette here on the project - and that includes making accusations of sock-puppetry, something I personally take seriously.  You made an oblique accusation that two editors are one and the same - either back it up, or back down.  That has nothing to do with the content of your edits, and is purely behavioural.
 * As for the PhD issue - have you read the link? It explains all.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Chaheel Riens Your comment about "You've been here for a while" I experience as presumptuous and patronising. I am not immersed in Wikipedia and use it occasionally as I'm sure you can check on my usage history.

I wrote regarding my factual edits being vandalised which you unfortunately did not address.

Please would you kindly address these and let me know these have been addressed.

I do not see a way to edit my post above as you have requested. Please advise how to do this.

Thank you.

Thank you. JRBC1 (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens 3rd request - please kindly address the issue of vandalism to my factually correct edits on the Rolfing page

2nd request - please advise how to edit previous entry on Talk page as I see no button

Please do not "presume" an obligation of knowledge or skill onto another. That is abusive and patronising.

Thank you

JRBC1 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Words
From the Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles:

"Allopathy is potentially confusing to readers in different cultures, as it could refer to traditional enantiopathic preparations or to mainstream modern medicine, depending on context. Avoid using allopathic to describe modern Western medicine; instead use conventional medicine or mainstream medicine.  Not all mainstream medicine is actually evidence-based medicine, and not all alternative medicine is traditional medicine.  See Alternative medicine for help with terminology." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Allopathic medicine is a well understood term by many people. However, to ensure no clarity and no confusion I have added the words (western conventional) in a couple of places after allopathic. As we know, Wikipedia has a global readership, and the use of terms such as 'conventional' should not be seen either as western-dominated or ambiguous  to readers in, say, India and China, home of about 2.6bn people combined, where their regularly practiced or conventional medicine may well be Ayurvedic medicine or Chinese medicine. JRBC1 (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ayurvedic medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine aren't called "conventional" in those countries.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

So yes, we are biased.


 * We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
 * We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
 * We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
 * We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
 * We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
 * We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
 * We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
 * We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
 * We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
 * We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
 * We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
 * We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
 * We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
 * We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
 * We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
 * We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
 * We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
 * We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.
 * We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
 * We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.
 * We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
 * We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.
 * We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
 * We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
 * We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
 * We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
 * We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Page-blocked
Since you have been persistently making tendentious edits to Rolfing, such as changing "established medical knowledge" to "allopathic medical knowledge" (not to mention this nonsense), I have blocked you from editing that page. Note that you can still edit the article's talkpage, as well as the rest of Wikipedia. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing  on this page. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC).

No personal attacks, please
Also, you need to immediately stop falsely accusing other editors of vandalism. It's considered a personal attack. Please read Vandalism to see how the word is defined here. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC).

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)