Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

You seem to have hit your 4th revert again at sciatic. Probably a good idea to self revert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We must be counting wrong. How is it 4 reverts if I just undid his move of botox to mainstream from the CAM section? If it's that big of deal, let me know and I'll move it back. There a difference between reverting and editing. DVMt (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You think botox is mainstream? DVMt (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to think about:

1. Keep your discussion on content. Passing comment on your perception of the motives of others is rarely helpful, and accusing others of being biased is often considered a personal attack.
2. Do not edit war, under any circumstances. You have been blocked for edit warring recently and should know better; I will not waste my time warning you in future.
3. If you, or yourself and a group of other editors make changes to an article, and those changes are subsequently challenged by another editor, the onus is on you to establish a clear consensus on the talk page of that article before re-introducing any of the material.

It's obvious from your pattern of editing that you have an agenda to promote alternative medicine in general. Whilst that is no crime, it is neither surprising nor unfavourable that the wikipedia community views advocates with suspicion, and so you are going to have accept that there will be significant opposition to much of what you do here. The answer to such opposition is not always to plough on regardless; indeed, the right solution is often to accept that you cannot have it your way. If you continue to edit contrary to the advice given above, you may be blocked from editing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you stated above except in one key regard: I have no agenda of "promoting" CAM. I am "informing" readers of the current scientific evidence of CAM interventions. No one disputes any of the sources I bring. It's always on the comments on "my agenda" with than actually discussion the material. WP must differentiate between skepticism of CAM and outright purging of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews that shows effectiveness. One editor alone has already deleted 60+ systematic reviews that showed effectiveness of specific CAM interventions from specific medical diagnoses. Will you please address this concern of mine? Thanks for writing. DVMt (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we may not have disputed many of your sources we have had some concerns surround your interpretation of the conclusions of said source and what sources have been left out.

• For example in this edit [1] you used a 2011 Cochrane review which concludes "High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain." to state "Manual and manipulative therapies may be effective for the treatment of low back pain" I and a number of others do not think that is an accurate paraphrasing.

• Than for neck pain this ref [2] but why not the actual Cochrane review? which concluded "Cervical manipulation and mobilisation produced similar changes. Either may provide immediate- or short-term change; no long-term data are available"

• Than for headaches you mention this review [3] but leave out this [4] one which concludes "Current evidence does not support the use of spinal manipulations for the treatment for migraine headaches."

A number of review where left out of the discussion of effectiveness including this 2012 Cochrane review [5] which concluded "SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval." and this 2012 review [6] "Collectively, these data fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain management"

You state I have removed sources and that is indeed correct. These changes did not have consensus and included the removal of other high quality sources. DVMt removed the conclusion of this systematic review [7] in this edit [8] attaching it to a statement it did not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I get a turn, please to present my side to Basalisk? I was labelled a white-washer by Doc James as I brought the Feb 11/2013 Chiropractic article for review. He labelled me a white-washer which has since tainted my time at WP. At no time since then, has any concern been given to the actual sources nor their language, but were reverted under the guise I was a CAM skeptic white-washer. This portrayal is inaccurate and it's really been bullied onto me. Ironically enough, it is Doc James who deleted all the evidence (120 citations) of any effectiveness of any CAM intervention. This includes mass deletion of basic sciences research. Also, the claim that I removed the conclusion is misleading the readers again, and there is the appropriate section here [9]. Thanks for listening. 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Note: Doc James, I ask that you please refrain from my talk page and I will do the same for yours. Thanks. DVMt (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Doc James is right. This is the problem with cherry picking sources. It's also the seemingly deceptive (but probably inadvertent) misuse of sources, and selective choosing. Bias does that to us. It's very human, but it's also the essence of cherry picking. It doesn't help. When other editors don't accept your edits, take note that you may not understand how things work here. This is unlike any other place on the internet and it has a complex culture and complicated rules. Rejection of your edits may have very different motivations than you could ever dream of, so your accusations come off as clumsy and obvious failures to AGF. Following the AGF policy avoids lots of pain and blocks. There is no rush here. Change comes slowly. If you really want your edits to "stick" and not be deleted, then you'll have to get other editors on your side and involve them in the formulation of new content. When that happens, you will be able to relax and not guard "your" addition, because others will also watch it and defend it from baseless attacks. Everyone is involved in the collaborative process and will help you. Constant pushing and arguing only alienates people. My first article here was summarily deleted, so I've been there and done that!Each specific article on homeopathy, spinal manipulation (not completely identical with chiropractic spinal adjustment), acupuncture, etc. is the place to go in depth and to present the best evidence according to MEDRS, and it's already been done. It will be hard to make radical changes there. It's just not possible to do that at the alternative medicine article. It's already quite large, but since it's a huge subject, we're allowing it to be large. If we ever do allow short coverage of each method in the AM article, it will have to be a short summation of the conclusions at the specific article. (Now PLEASE don't go starting wars on all of them! We're tired of putting out wildfires.) -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Yes, you have a "right" to deny access to your talk page within certain limits (it's not really yours), but this is evidence of an uncollaborative spirit and will no doubt be used as evidence of your battlefield attitude. Really, save such restrictions for obvious trolls who engage in real harassment, not those who disagree with you but who engage in real conversation and serious comment. AGF. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer, stop moving my comment around and let them be in the order in they appeared. You're breaking up my page. I cherry pick my sources no more than you, except I use systematic reviews from PubMed and you bring primary sources from websites and QuackWatch. Given your radical COI I'm surprised you defend them so much. Anyways, I would ask them you, as well, please refrain from my talk page. We can keep discussion at the respective talk pages or articles we're editing. I specifically addressed Basalisk. I'm waiting for his/her reply (and noted it at the talk page) DVMt (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your adversarial spirit and ban are duly noted. I'll just clear up one misunderstanding/false accusation you keep using before I leave. That's only fair. You won't find me using primary sources, Quackwatch, simple websites, etc. for stuff that is covered by MEDRS. For that I use quality scientific sources. MEDRS covers biomedical and scientific claims, but it does NOT cover anything else. Other types of information have different sourcing rules. You need to learn to distinguish between different types of content and that they require different types of sources. We document the sum total of human knowledge here. That is the basic premise at Wikipedia. That's why it exists. We document facts, fiction, conspiracy theories, opinions, controversies, fringe ideas, etc.. They all require the use of RS, but of very different types, for very different purposes. If you wish to reply, you can do it on my talk page. You're not a troll. You're sincere and willing to discuss, and that's fine with me. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brangifer there are 2 main points of disagreements between us. One, your COI at alt-med and as a skeptic with ties to QuackWatch worries me about impartiality. It's hard to ignore. I'm only saying this is because you didn't want to admit certain CAM interventions are effective for specific medical diagnoses then advocated that 20 systematic reviews of effectiveness should be chopped because they were "bloat". You did not stand by MEDRS there, and for me, that was a litmus test. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. But that's what it appears, so again the COI comes to play. Second, you believe that medical controversies does not need WP:MEDRS oversight, saying skeptical websites are the equivalent to academic peer reviewed literature at PubMed. DVMt (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you misunderstand...on all points. No COI, and no equivalency between types of sources. They are used for different purposes. I have already explained this, but you are not AGF, so by violating policy on that point, you misunderstand and act on those misunderstandings. You have been warned you're heading down the wrong staircase, but you persist, and I can assure you that at the bottom of your staircase, there are crocodiles. We're trying to help, but you refuse. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We agree to disagree with respect to your COI. I have declared mine and you choose to wiki-lawyer yours. The link to QuackWatch is undeniable and the alt-med article is filled with soap-boxing to Stephen Barrett and using QuackWatch sources instead of PubMed sources. Anyways, if we're both committed to using the best sources and neutrally covering the material there won't be any problems. Do you want to do a reboot at Alt-Med and discuss the effectiveness section that incorporates the evidence presented. We'll go over it at TALK. DVMt (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QuackWatch is a reliable source. Being skeptical isn't a conflict of interest, that's patently absurd. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use peer-reviewed academic literature for criticisms instead of reaching down to a website. Regardless, being skeptical is not a COI in itself, but when editors have ties and have collaborated with Stephen Barrett, use "in universe" language about what Barrett is thinking, actively edits QW then, IMO, there is a definite COI. But, alas, I'm not keen to get into that debate again. Thanks for your comment. DVMt (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time editing alternative medicine articles and believe there is a lot of promise in the area: you're better off adopting a less combative style. If you don't portray yourself as the enemy, you're less likely to be treated as one. Take small steps and be careful. Also, regardless of whether a 2012 review concludes that acupuncture or chiropractic are highly effective, there are typically similarly credible reviews saying the exact opposite and cost-effectiveness will probably always be a question mark. These aren't areas I've spent much time in as I have little interest them (my interest is vitamins and herbs) but last I checked it was unsettled and it likely will remain so. II | (t - c) 06:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this message. You're investing too much time and energy here to end up with your efforts being dismissed or overlooked on account of snark or antagonism. Focus on content not the contributor (don't worry too much about COI, it's typically low on the pyramid; trust me, I've been there and it earned nothing but disrespect). Try to treat these editors like you would your colleagues; indeed, we are your colleagues--we're writing an encyclopedia together. Reasonable people can and do disagree. Use the process, the process being sources, balance, discussion, and time. Be as civil as you are bold: you'll last longer, be more successful, and have a better time. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was being too invested and not viewing most as my colleagues, in part because I was being trolled. But now I have found a group of editors who, collectively, shown me the way to last here and I'm in for the long haul. It got off to a rough start, no doubt, but I'm putting that behind me and moving on with a new approach and a new understanding how the WP "works" (as much as anyone can!) Thanks for writing. DVMt (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might want to read Wikipedia:Non-free_content and related pages, and read up on the issues with using and uploading non-free images. Remember that you must be the original author of images you claim are your own. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I would like to delete an image I uploaded and save some drama, but I don't know how to remove an image I've uploaded. Is there a FAQ somewhere to read? DVMt (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the only person who has edited the image page, you could put a {{db-g7|rationale=your_reasons_here}} template on the page to request a speedy deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #General for context). For an image though, it might be better to use a specific speedy file deletion template such as one of those in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #Files, but without knowing your reasons, I can't indicate which one would be appropriate to your request. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping RexxS. It's happening here [10]. Regards, DVMt (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acupuncture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epidermis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware. Topics related to pseudoscience/fringe science are covered by discretionary sanctions. You appear to be removing the mainstream point of view from the chiropractic article. Here is a standard notice:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]