User talk:Randomcoolzip

Homeopathy and other issues
I'm going to give you some sage pieces of advice. It'll save you a bunch of problems going forward:
 * 1) Sign your name when you post.
 * 2) Don't make false accusations. I am NOT the final word on any article, especially Homeopathy.  There are at least 10 maybe more regular editors of the article.
 * 3) Read neutral point of view. It is not the job of Wikipedia to explain all theories, thoughts, and conclusions with equal weight.  In fact, to maintain neutrality, we do not give undue weight to fringe theories.
 * 4) We also require reliable sources. These are sources that stand up to critiques.  Hannemann is an interesting historical character, but from a medical and scientific POV, he's nothing.
 * 5) It is irresponsible for any editor, myself included, to create original research.

So, if you're going to act like a troll on my page, don't. Fully understand what Wikipedia is about by understanding the various guidelines that allow us to develop neutral articles. We are not here to push POV of unsupported theories. Which is what you are attempting to do. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with Randomcoolzip's edits, but please don't bite the newbies. And also please assume good faith.  Immediately accusing someone of trolling because they don't agree with you're POV is not very Civil.  Thanks! Elhector (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been doing this long enough to know what's going on. His attempting to take an article discussion to my page and accuse me a whole host of crap is trolling by all definitions.  No, I don't accuse people of trolling because they disagree with my NPOV (please read, NPOV, not POV); I accuse them of trolling when they, in fact, troll.  Also, I might be smelling some dirty socks around here, but I'm not quite sure.  I always forget a sock or two when I'm doing my laundry. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I always thought the definition of trolling was going and causing arguments and conflict for fun and giggles. Personally from what I've been reading from Randomcoolzip it seems like he has some real concerns about the article and isn't looking to cause trouble but instead to get his concerns addressed.  I wasn't aware that contacting someone on there talk page about recent revisions and reverts to there work was considered trolling but I'll be sure to check the policy on trolling in case something changed that I'm not aware of.  In the mean time though I would reiterate that calling someone a troll when they're just trying to get there concerns addressed is not civil nor is it assuming good faith.  Your edit summary of "sniff sniff" on your most recent post here also speaks to the incivility and assumption of bad faith I'm speaking about above.  As for your talk of "dirty socks" above I can only assume that you are accusing either myself or Randomcoolzip of sock puppeting.  Speaking for myself, please feel free to have Checkuser run on my username, you'll find that I'm not engaged in sort of sock puppetry or other unethical wiki practices.  If you are accusing Randomcoolzip I can't speak for him/her but I would suggest you do the same for his user account instead of dropping uncivil hints that you are assuming bad faith.  Thanks! Elhector (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Elhector. I would like to keep this civil. I was not trolling; I was concerned to see corrections that I had made were reversed without any discussion, not knowing the protocol.

Non-mainstream science rarely gets reported in non-mainstream journals, almost by definition. According to the Wiki reliable sources guide the Thompson Web of Knowledge is a good guide. It includes thousands of journals, many that are not so mainstream as NEJM, Lancet, etc. e.g.

608. ALTERNATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES 609. ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE REVIEW 610. ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES IN HEALTH AND MEDICINE 611. ALTERNATIVES

So I wont have trouble coming up with non-mainstream sources that should be acceptable Wiki sources.

As you quoted in the NPOV on your comments page, non-majority viewpoints should be reported in articles about those views. An article on homeopathy is about that view, so it should reflect at least in part the homeopathy community's viewpoint. Randomcoolzip 21:49, 6 December 2007 (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) 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Friendly advice

 * Roger, some friendly advice. Learn to sign your posts with ~ at the end of your posts, or else a bot or someone else has to sign for you. Also, the article homeopathy you are so upset about is the result of hundreds of editors working on it for years, and compromise and consensus of supporters and detractors of homeopathy.


 * Once an article has been through multiple layers of review and thousands upon thousands of edits as homeopathy, to make big changes requires consensus and reliable sources. This means peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific journal studies like in the Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine or Nature magazine. You cannot just expect to capriciously and gratuitously make changes and expect others to accept them on your say-so. Bring any suggestions for changes up on the article talk page at Talk:Homeopathy and try to build a case for your edits. If others agree, then they will be implemented. You cannot just change these well-established articles by fiat and fatwa and expect them to stay that way. If we allowed this, very quickly this project would degenerate into nonsense. --Filll (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As for so-called mainstream scientific journals, see above. Randomcoolzip 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)