User talk:Brunton - Knowledge

3416:

quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Knowledge:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here. Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Knowledge:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Knowledge. If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Knowledge. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Knowledge:Donating copyrighted materials. Also note that Knowledge articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Knowledge project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Knowledge:Translation#How to translate. See also

614:"the homoeopathic community" and "the homoeopathic establishment". In the context of clinical trials it seems to me that we must be dealing with a select subset of "the homoeopathic community". It seems to me that clinical studies should involve medical professionals providing health care according to research protocols approved by human subjects research boards. For example, a clinical study of heart surgery for the treatment of a particular type of heart defect would necessarily have to concern itself with the professional qualifications of the doctors who perform the surgery. It would not be very meaningful to say that the findings of a heart surgery study were "negative" if the doctors performing the surgeries for the study had no professional training in heart surgery. Within "the homoeopathic community" there are medical doctors who have professional training in homeopathy as part of their medical education. It would not take much effort for someone publishing a clinical study of a homeopathic medical therapy to describe the professional qualifications of the medical practitioners involved in the study. In my experience in the USA, contact with patients involved in clinical research studies cannot be initiated unless the medical professionals who will be involved in the study are specified and approved by a review board. I'd be interested to know what professional training in homeopathic medicine 3191:

mistakes. Wrong dates, wrong labels, wrong albums. I've seen unreliable photographs of covers. A photograph doesn't always determine the right date given that albums are released at different times in different countries. For jazz, Discogs.com is usually more reliable, though you can't use it in citations because it is crowd-sourced and I have seen mistakes at Discogs, too. At that site, it's helpful to look at look at every release of the album. Because this is the English-speaking Knowledge, I favor albums released in the U.S. and U.K. because of the readers. With exceptions of course. Foreign musicians will often naturally sign with foreign labels, so I do the best I can. You know I have to decide somehow. Because jazz record collecting is a niche hobby, you sometimes find collectors use recording dates rather than release dates. Their interest is partially biographical: They like to see the continuity in a person's work. But I would like to see that interest explored in the body of the article rather than make the discography as detailed as a collector's book. Clear as mud, right?

618:(and others in involved in that particular study) have had. It would also be interesting to poll 100 randomly selected recent graduates of medical schools who have received training in homeopathy and ask them if that Calendula Officinalis treatment should be counted as a homeopathic therapy. It may well be that there are different "schools of thought" with respect to the practice of homeopathy and the answer would depend on which medical school a homeopath received their education from. It may be that "the homoeopathic establishment" is a fictional concept...Peter Fisher might be from a "homeopathic school of thought" that would be totally rejected by other homeopaths. I suspect that any meta-analysis taking an uncritical approach to deciding what constitutes homeopathic medical practice cannot reach any meaningful conclusions about homeopathic medicine. Some of these issues are discussed in 3882:'questionable'. I would think that if an individual engaged in those practices, the criticism applies, even though the individual is not named directly in those sources. I think it's more accurate to contextualize *why* criticism arises and this could well include local and regional issues. The example I am getting at is the practice of house flipping. Though it is not illegal, a sizeable amount of literature here in Canada has pointed out the economic and social problems this practice may and does facilitate, which includes increasing housing and rental costs, as well as money laundering and tax evasion. Thus, when I included criticism of the practice and the Wikpedia page includes specific and well sourced references to those practices by the individual, I think the addition of this information is warranted. You thoughts or reasoning welcomed. 548:"including individual studies will not add any reliable information to the article" <-- What if one published study ("cherry picked", as you say) reported results for a homeopathic therapy as performed by trained homeopaths while another study claimed to involve homeopathy but it reported results obtained by people who have no training in homeopathy and who do not actually follow the practices used by homeopaths? It might be instructive and useful for Knowledge to compare the methods, results and conclusions of two such individual studies. I can think of many possible reasons for mentioning individual studies and I do not agree that "including individual studies will not add any reliable information to the article". -- 1030:

one or two others, to refrain from irrational and obviously heavily biased edits and comments—this is extremely disruptive. I mean really! We both know that the placement of citations in the lead needs to occur after the statement they are intended to support. And instead, this absurd massaging of the text to include a "negative" qualification and then have the citations appear after it, is really quite ridiculous. Transparent is perhaps a better word. And I'm sure that if any arbitration examiner were to look at this activity objectively, they would come to the conclusion that certain individuals were attempting to mislead, and were not acting honestly, or in good faith.

4205: 3965:(Walter is indefed at present, so he can't). Not that I agree with trying hide things, but I think NiceTryEarl has shown progress and intention to move forward within WP guidelines (insofar as he knows them - he's still new). We need to encourage that behavior when effort is shown so that he sticks around, learns the culture, and becomes a long term editor doing things the right way. I'll commit to taking responsibility for keeping an eye on him and giving him guidance as long as he's showing due effort in moving in the right direction. Think about it and give it some consideration. 1054:

low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results", and "we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition" after the phrase "these studies are not definitive", then this would appear to be appropriate. They are clearly saying that the evidence is not definitive, and it would be misleading to imply that they aren't.

4446: 596:. That was just the first example that came to mind as a refutation of you blanket claim that no reliable information can come from discussing individual studies. It might be useful to show Knowledge readers that only some studies claiming to use homeopathic medicine actually use homeopathy, particularly if published results showed a difference between 1) patient response to homeopathy and 2) patient response to therapy that is only called "homeopathy" by doctors who do not actually practice homeopathy. -- 4429: 4198: 2130: 2103: 3790: 3069: 2390: 4213: 4222: 4339: 4111: 3700: 2981: 2837: 2762: 2689: 2616: 623:

matched with what is known about homeopathic remedies. This matching is, in the eyes of the homeopathic community, the most important of all active ingredients." Do most clinical studies of homeopathy take this "active ingredient" into account? Their conclusion ("We conclude therefore that homeopathy can justifiably be considered a complex intervention. This should be taken into account in the design of clinical trials") makes sense to me. --

1034:

contribute on these pages does not qualify as good reasons or sound arguments, and it is often highly irrational, illogical and clearly biased. Quite simply, I don't believe they are operating on the principle of good faith, although I've made every effort to assume they were. And I cordially ask you to redress this if you will, with a note, suggestion, or a comment, that will also have the beneficial effect of de-polarizing the talk pages.

1735: 588:" and the abstract is not very clear, but the abstract of that article seems to suggest that there was an observed placebo effect for what they call "individualized homeopathy". I'd like to see a copy of the article and see if the conditions being treated in the reviewed studies were of a type likely to show a placebo effect, if the treatments were actually performed by trained homeopaths and what the assessment methods were. The 4287: 2491: 2505: 2067: 989:?) and "patient's request or preference" (note the results of the West Kent PCT research into usage of homoeopathy cited on the talk page). And, as usual with any apparently positive research regarding homoeopathy, we get a disclaimer: "Conclusions from this study are limited owing to the lack of large, representative national samples of physicians". 1108:

system...(was) the doctrine of specifics," (Dudgeon, p.51) and "from 1796 to 1808 he employed almost exclusively the word specific to designate his system, and after the latter date we meet with the term homoeopathic." (Dudgeon, p.51) Hahnemann initially described homeopathy as "the doctrine of specifics." (Dudgeon, p.55) Robert Ellis Dudgeon,

814: 3171:, I was going on the album’s article, the Allmusic ref given there, and the album’s entry in the Penguin guide, all of which say Justin Time. The copy I have on Justin Time doesn’t mention a release on Enja. The album was edited and mastered in Montreal, which also suggests Justin Time rather than Enja. I’ve also found 965:

several CAM therapies, where 26% of physicians believed in the value of homeopathy, and 9% practiced it? Do you believe that this has no bearing on "fringe belief" status? Incidentally, from my review of the literature, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales have some of the lowest homeopathic medicine use statistics in Europe.

922: 122:

with the topic.... I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms." then adds "It is interesting how you chose to not give the entire quote from your posting at that same time."

4622:

by Richard Cook, and between that and a couple of Monk biographies etc. there is plenty of coverage of the sessions. I might get around to drafting something based on them next month, and then think about moving back to an article about the sessions (and their reissue history) with redirects from the

3190:

It's good to see you dig into the subject. Not everyone does. It certainly makes sense that recording in Montreal makes Justin Time the likely choice. After years of entering errors, which I still work to correct, I learned the hard way that, for whatever reason, the jazz albums at AllMusic have many

1957:

I'm not sure - OM seemed happy to participate on talk pages (that seems to be what he got into trouble about - I didn't know he was blocked until now) and so, as far as I remember, was SA. The current problem is that SR is reverting against consensus without any reference to the talk page. Since he

1121:

Furthermore, in the homeopathy article it says 1807, but the ref #172 to an article by M E Dean does not even mention the year 1807 (which is listed in the article), so where has that date cited in the article come from? It has no basis and should be removed from the article and replaced with 1808 as

1053:

If you're talking about putting references which state, "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias", "however, the strength of this evidence is

1037:

I am fully prepared to accept the negative evidence against homeopathy, provided it is honestly communicated and supported, in a neutral manner that is worthy to be called "encyclopedic." I am not a homeopath, but I have a natural aversion to what I perceive to be heavy bias, especially when it's not

843:

Lets put it that way: It would be a lie if an article declares that the collective evidence does not support homeopathy 's efficacy since you have an exceptional source reporting the following: "Homeopathy is a popular type of complementary medicine. It is however controversial because although there

777:

I suppose someone must have had a reason for putting it there. On reflection, I've restored it with a fact tag to give an opportunity for someone to find a source for it. As for the source cited, while it doesn't appear to support that particular assertion (it is always possible that the source has

622:

where it is suggested that "The empathic nature of homeopathic consultations is often cited as the reason why patients appear to respond". This article includes an interesting claim about "the homeopathic community": "A specific part of the process of homeopathic care is the way in which Lifeworld is

4439:

Wishing you Season's Greetings and a Happy Winter Solstice! As the year comes to a close, I want to express my appreciation for your dedicated efforts on Knowledge and extend heartfelt thanks for your assistance throughout the years. May the holiday season bring you and your loved ones abundant joy,

3415:

While we appreciate your contributions to Knowledge, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues. You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double

1636:

Looking at the article and talk page history, you should win some kind of award for all the work you have done on that article... maybe a degree in homeopathy! ... just kidding, you really look like you have put in a tremendous amount of work trying to resolve things with so many different kinds of

1344:

Just heard some stuff from this guy, saw he had no page, so I created one. It's very light and cursory, but I noticed that one of your userpages linked to it, so I assume you may want to know it's been started. I used only 4 references, though I found a few more (gScholar had some good ones). If you

699:

Believe it or not....the following also applies to most other editors who hold opposing opinions here. I suspect that if we were discussing things face to face over a good beer or red Zinfandel, we'd probably enjoy each other's company and have a good time. That's one of the disadvantages of editing

189:

of who'd amde that edit; he seemed to have gone on a spree of copyright violations (and bad edits) a little over a year ago before ceasing editing altogether. Most were caught and reverted, but you found one that hadn't. I went through the remainder of his article-space edits and those which weren't

168:

Hi, I saw that you had made some edits to this article within the last year. Unfortunately, it was brought to my attention that the article had earlier been a copyright violation, so I reverted back to the pre-copyvio version. This has had the unfortunate effect of removing your subsequent edits, so

4006:

You giving me advices, I will give you one too. Read what is valuable resources. You work on Knowledge from some time so you will find the appropriate page. If not I will give you the link, just tell me. One basic point is that to say "possibly there is something" is not informative. Imagine asking

2953:

I looked through the talk page for mentions of this section and see your name pop up a few times over the years. I was hoping you could give me some context as to what the intended purpose of this section is and how you think it could be improved. I am thinking key issues would be better integrated

2949:

As I am sure you are well aware I am working my way through the article at the moment and am about to come to the public opposition section. It is an odd section, one I have not seen in too many articles. I am not entirely sure what its purpose is. Much of the examples have been mentioned elsewhere

980:

There may be cultural differences in acceptance of homoeopathy in different countries, but from the talk page it appears that this argument has been overtaken by events. It would be interesting to know on what basis 26% "believed in the value" of homoeopathy. As a means of prescribing a placebo?

4555:

I agree wholeheartedly with your complaints about the unilateral destruction of the page about Thelonious Monk's Blue Note sessions -- as well as the combining of the pages of "Genius" vols 1 & 2 --both done in January by a single editor. In both cases the current edits muddy up the waters on

4007:

somebody on the intersection. When you ask somebody about location of a store, for example. And the person says: "possibly it is there", nothing more. Is the information any value to you who looking for the store. Knowledge suppose to be informative place, this is no place for noninformative junk.

1940:

OM = Orangemarlin. I hadn't thought of that but I suppose it's possible (I don't recall SA's style). There's no question that I share their POV quite often, but that doesn't mean it's OK to edit-war your preferred wording into or out of the article, and to revert when there's a talk page consensus

1029:

Brunton, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis on the homeopathy talk pages. You are one of few individuals on those pages that can make rational arguments on the points being discussed. But I would ask you, if you would, to speak with a few of the other editors, notably Yobal, Verbal, and perhaps

2025:

on the Talk:Homeopathy page, and an editor pointed out that the withdrawn paper was still being used as a source on the Oscillococcinum page, so I removed it and the text it referenced, which since it is a comment specifically about this review (although for some reason it implied that it was two

467:

his comment about past edits. I think it will be most constructive if "Dr.Jhingaadey" is not distracted from the goal of trying to make specific suggestions for how to improve the content of Knowledge articles. However, if you have other issues (such as those related to his past editing behavior)

121:

He quotes Scientizzle as saying "I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal

1689:

important and “ethics busting” way. I thought maybe you might be able to help me come up with an understandable sentence or two about this. While “I do not no not a thing” about technical arguments in mathematical realism involving Mackie’s error theory of mathematical realism as it applies to

1033:

I think I am operating in good faith here, as I think are you. We just happen to see things differently, but most importantly, we are prepared to discuss things rationally, presenting evidence to support our claims, using good reasons and sound arguments. Much of what some of these other editors

747:

British Journal of Homoepathy. G. Vithoulkas responded to this review, and it appeared in the same British Journal of Homoepathy. If you mention A. Campbell's critical review, you must also mention G. Vithoulkas' response and defense for balance, regardless of your personal beliefs on the topic.

746:

With all due respect, I don't understand why you are reverting my edits? I've provided my contributions with references. There is really no neutral reason for this, as they simply provide the mirror view when writing about A. Campbell's critical review of G. Vithoulkas' book that appeared in the

964:

You might not have seen this on the talk page, as it was buried in the flurry of voting. You cited a survey that was conducted in Scotland and had to do with physician referrals. But what do you think of the Astin (1998) paper which reported physician belief in the United States with respect to

24:

Thanks for your help. It's nice when someone else steps up to the plate and bats when someone who is supposedly an expert refuses to play. I guess he just can't deal with uncomfortable answers. I've noticed that he is equally evasive towards other editors who ask uncomfortable questions. I have

4734:

Brunton? I don't think I've clocked your username before but I suddenly noticed you in a nice pile of locally-relevant stuff ... no sweat and do feel free to tell me to get lost as I am just being nosy ... I am writing this, fyi, at a very very short distance from the Greys in Embleton! Cheers

532:

article should provide an account of the popularity of homeopathy among patients and doctors. Studies that demonstrate greater satisfaction among patients who use homeopathy than among those who use conventional medicine help explain the popularity of homeopathy. This should be mentioned in

3363:

Sorry, I missed this response, but todays developments here are, shall I say, an amusing indication of failure to get it. I'll think about the significant coverage aspects, as I haven't before. I have also discovered that you've been on the project longer than I, something I didn't realise.

1870:

to get himself blocked. I'm not really sure how to handle this - I don't doubt he's well meaning but he's definitely becoming a pain on the homeopathy article. I don't want to go to ANI with this just yet and I doubt that WQA will do any good, so I'm unsure how to handle this. Any thoughts?

1107:

Many moons ago the homeopathy article stated the year when Hahnemann first used the term homeopathy. Not sure what year was given but it was probably way before 1808. Well, here is a quote from a very reliable source concerning that matter. "The name originally bestowed by Hahnemann on his

3881:

Hi. I've spent time contributing to a Knowledge page and I included information that contextualized a source of criticism. That is, I included sources (governmental, academic and police reports) that offered reasoning for criticism of certain practices that, while legal, were considered

2701:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2774:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

128:

I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic.

767:

First, thanx for your rapid response to my concern about that strange sentence about miasms. Because I have not watched this article until very recently, do you have any idea how that "fact" got there?...and do you have any comment on the RS status of that non-peer review site?

1804:

I'd put a line of text into the summary box that had, on previous occasions when I've uploaded covers, automatically inserted the appropriate rationale etc, but it doesn't seem to have worked. I've edited the page to include rationale and licensing sections - is it OK now?

3175:

that gives a Justin Time “digital” release in 1999 and an Enja CD in 2000. Discogs shows the Enja release as “Copyright © – Justin Time Records Inc., Phonographic Copyright ℗ – Enja Records”, and the Justin Time one as copyright Justin Time for both, for what it’s worth.

2950:

in the article and even the ones that haven't have had equivalent examples mentioned (i.e. universities no longer offering courses). It doesn't have an introduction and seems to just be a list of examples where people have criticised or taken action against homeopathy.

1087:

This is introducing needless repetition into the lead. The tail end of that statement is already included in the passage that you are objecting to the referencing of (and is implicit in the words "collective evidence" in the sentence you are proposing adding it to).

2450:. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 794:] on the falsity of this statement and on the fact that it was un-sourced at the reference you provided. And I welcome you and Shoemaker and anyone else to double-check or triple-check my contentions, as I think we should all do with each other to create accuracy. 778:

changed since it was added) it appears to be on the website the school of medicine of an accredited university (correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not particularly familiar with the American academic system). I suspect that that gives it a certain degree of authority.

1714:

about "bad faith", to which I was a witness, and the discussion made my head spin at that time. How can these ideas be explained in plain English, and in only a sentence or two? You can respond at the talk page of bad faith, where I am copying this request.

1072:

So then you wouldn't object to modifying the first sentence of paragraph #3 lead to say: "Claims of homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence, though some evidence exists."?

2077:

regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is

2628:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

1131:

Thanks for putting the changes in as previously suggested. I will see what I can find for you re Kent and Hering; Dudgeon is without doubt the best source, but he is only online in google books or as a download. Will report back in due course, cheers

3348:

I keep telling myself that I’ve had enough of trying to sort this stuff out, but I keep going back... In the current case, does it even pass GNG? Do the sort of dictionary/glossary entries from which it is sourced count as “significant coverage”?

1684:

Brunton, I noticed you edit on Phil of Sci related articles, and you have commented at the talk page of the bad faith article. So maybe you were reading mathematical philosophy stuff about ten years ago, too, where “bad faith” arises in a

1466:"It is a comment on the methodology of a specific paper and as such belongs, if anywhere, with discussion of that specific paper. Even there it needs to be given appropriate weight wrt its context. Brunton (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2010" 3948:

Since no one had responded to the section about RyanChang2010, I partially reverted your edit (thus re-removing that one separate section). It was inappropriate for the talk page anyway, since it was essentially personal (and borderline

1607:

That would be a 1 in 1,000,000 dilution. Weak enough for most substances to have no significant effects, but still with detectable amounts of the substance left. You need to get to 12C/24X to be reasonably sure there's none left.

57: 206:. Some of those have since been so heavily edited that it is not really practical to revert, and besides, there is very little of his material left in them. I'll have a look at these if there's anything that can be done. 2931: 894:

No, you are failing to understand the distinction between "some" and "all". For example, some birds are ducks, but it doesn't follow from that that the statement "most birds are not ducks" is misleading, or untrue.

1007:. At first I wondered why your wiped out my edtis at homeopaty, so checked your talk page to understand why. (Then I noticed the homeopathy talk page archives. Whew! Given the history, the article is wonderful.) 815:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#1c: Ignoring Linde.27s retraction.2C and Linde 1997. Ullman as a tendentious editor.3B Ullman insists others AGF while refusing to hold the same courtesy to

2571:. 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 59:

Because this is a minor point, can I ask you to make this change? As you may know, I cannot at present do editing on homeopathy pages, and although this hasn't been deemed as such, I would rather not edit here.

1729: 4305:, which is against Knowledge's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses 3572: 3507: 499: 3907: 1865:

Looking through his editing history and reading the few comments on his talk page (he's pretty much telling everyone to “fuck off”, although he doesn't use that exact wording) I get the feeling that he's

1288:

This expression connects both the scales: the Centesimal Hahnemannian (C or CH) and the Common Decimal scale (D or X) for representing homeopathic dilutions, as presented on the following table: (...)"

249:

seemed more in line with convention, but I wouldn't worry about it at all. The redirects are in place, so your all bases are covered. (From my last sentence, you may be able to guess where I now am.) —

524:

Your analysis is flawed. You cannot categorically rule out mentioning studies that "Dr. J" might suggest. Doing so only shows your bias and unwillingness to listen to suggestions from other editors. "

4368:. 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 4140:. 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 3727:. 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 3008:. 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 2864:. 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 2786:. 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 2713:. 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 2640:. 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 1657:

I believe that I can not make any suggestion to further improve the homeopathy article as it currently stands. Thank you for reading my extensive commentary and actually taking time to respond to

3638: 3412: 985:? Of the four main reasons for using CAM cited in the paper, two have no real indication of particular belief in CAM by the doctor: "patient's lack of response to conventional treatment" (AKA 3941:, and I think he is showing an effort to move forward in a way that is more in line with Knowledge policy and culture. Something he left in a followup on the conversation on my talk page was 2954:

into other sections or if it must exist it needs some focus and flow. I know this should go through the talk, but just wanted to get some background before opening it up or boldly editing it.

700:

on the internet. It's so damn impersonal. When we can laugh at ourselves, that's a healthy sign. When we can't do that, look out! Cheers to you. Assuming you like red wine, have you tried

3953:, something I did addressed with him, albeit not that specifically, which I suspect is part of why he changed his user page). I'd encourage you to reconsider his other changes, provided 704:? Alexander Valley Vinyards is only about 90 min north of you, depending on the traffic. You're privileged to live so close to such great wine country. I have always loved driving up the 3821:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. 3100:, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. 133:

I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & nothing else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms." statement

4384: 4156: 3743: 3024: 2880: 2802: 2729: 2656: 1571:

A thought has just struck me. Only the other day, I opened a bottle of orange squash and I diluted some - and its thirst-quenching properties improved! It must be homeopathy! :-) --

3559: 3486: 3987:

I appreciate anyone who puts in the time to make Knowledge better. If Earl wants to clear any discussions I was a part of which he feels are no longer productive, I won't object. —

2323: 1320:

from that editor to see if there are any other problems. He seems to have been long gone, so there is probably little point in leaving a note on his talk page or a notification at

4353: 4125: 3713: 2994: 2850: 2061: 3420:. It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- 2920:

Someone needs to add a section on the impacts of traditional chinese medicine on the environment, with a focus on the harvesting of endangered animals for these dubious cures.

1437:) 21:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC) You are changing you mind all the time. I think you said you agreed to include somewhere or somehow the letter in the article. What happened?-- 2927: 2013:) on the Talk:Homeopathy page in which it was concluded that we couldn't use this paper because it has been withdrawn from the current version of the Cochrane database (see 2022: 350: 592:

cites studies which reached the conclusion that exactly how a placebo is delivered can influence the placebo response. I have no idea if there exist published studies of

114: 859:

The statement "there is some evidence that it is not just a placebo" does not contradict the statement "the collective evidence does not support homeopathy's efficacy".

143:

that that's a misreading - he had to intentionally edit out words to change the meaning, at the same time as berating Scientizzle for not giving the whole quote. That's

4306: 1798: 4482:

page; I thought that was really cool information, and a fascinating source. I figured it was a coin toss between you and Helen Puffer Thwait as to who put it there.

813:

Please, if you're going to do things based on his say-so, double and triple check his claims first. He misrepresents sources appallingly, if it suits him. (example:

3923: 1429:

If you subscribe to this change about Linde letter - thank you. You have prove you are a good sceptic. I m sure someone can add the rest and the correct citation.--

287:

The most likely cause is that you accidentally typed 5 tildes instead of 4. ~~~~ gives you the signature you want; ~~~~~ gives you only the date and time stamp. -

3528:, the post that you are claiming the article was copied from is dated May 2021. The article has been on Knowledge in close to its current form for over a decade. 3876: 2409: 1774:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in

620:

Homeopathy – what are the active ingredients? An exploratory study using the UK Medical Research Council's framework for the evaluation of complex interventions

69: 3584: 3519: 2175: 1549: 3908: 3232: 2247: 959: 741: 53:

Brunton, Edmund Smith was also known as a homeopathic physician. I'm not clear what was wrong with the reference that I provided. You questioned it here:

2088: 4314: 4049: 2674: 4536:

Cheers for all the tidy up edits you are doing. I just haven't had time to get into checking each one - but it seemed likely many were just name drops.

3625: 3289: 2382: 832: 519: 3770: 3050: 16: 4556:

what had been accurate, easy-to-understand pages. Not to mention that they were long-fought-for pages which were the result of much collaboration.

2906: 2820: 2747: 3863: 2935: 1545: 1366: 1348: 3901: 4008: 2605: 2417: 487: 4637:

There existed a massive, easy to follow article about the Monk Blue Note Sessions. I am afraid it might have been deleted in this current mess.

2600: 2269: 1590:

Per your edit comment: I can't chase it right now, but the FDA's definition of Homeopathic should support this statement. Iirc, it's 6X or more.

1257:"(...) Because successive dilutions are ordinarily centesimal ones, the following generalization is useful as presenting its mathematical form: 78: 4691: 3937:, I think his intention was to clean up some of his previous commentary. He made very significant changes to his personal user page based on 3650: 2079: 974: 761: 92: 2309:

Hi, May I know what do you mean by adequately sourced, The references which I have quoted are peer reviewed medical journals from pubmed...

2265: 2233:

The best way to terminate a deadhorse argument is simply to stop responding. Otherwise, it's going to go on forever. Don't waste your time.

2223: 1316:

seem to have been free from copyright themselves, and you've preserved them in the current version of the article. I'm taking a look at the

381: 4411: 4183: 3284: 2477: 2299: 1679: 632: 542: 514: 4250:, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. 2193: 686:

I too loved this segment. Heck, I can laugh at myself and fellow homeopaths (and please kick me if I miss a good opportunity to do so).

4559:

I don't have much fight in me these days, but I will support any group effort to find a better solution that what exists there right now.

3690: 3318: 2971: 1742: 1406:

More discussion going on, this time about whether/how to incorporate sources which address the underlying/specific claims made by Ernst.

1388: 2827: 2754: 2681: 2519: 2482: 1379: 725: 48: 43: 4652: 2189: 1895: 1221:

article too. Re Hering, he was also responsible for Hering's law. Will try to find more on him at some point as time permits. regards

690: 575: 4777: 4740: 4098: 3264: 2439: 2279: 2203: 1845:

PRENTISS (Stephen Fry) to CLIVE (Tom George): Stop showing glimmerings of intelligence, it's like finding caviar in a cheeseburger. (

83:

You said it was available online. Couldn't you just post the link so that everyone involved in the homeopathy talk page can see it?

3995: 3682: 3668: 3617: 3603: 3551: 3537: 3476: 3462: 3448: 3379: 3358: 2053: 2035: 1967: 1927: 1909: 1724: 772: 425: 64: 4781: 4767: 4577: 4477: 4298: 3429: 2074: 1617: 1601: 1585: 1461: 904: 889: 868: 605: 557: 481: 1984: 798: 787: 444:

page should only be concerned with discussion of specific suggestions for how to improve Knowledge articles. What do you think? --

118:

I'd be willing to believe that was a misreading if Ullman's quote of Scientizzle didn't remove six words that change the meaning.

102: 3387: 2946:

Hi Brunton. I don't think we have interacted before, but I saw you copy edited some text I added at Homoepathy. Thanks for that.

2941: 1950: 1254:-homeopathy (no criticism or irony here, please! — only dialectic argumentation), it seems to be reasonable that showing this... 1097: 1082: 1063: 998: 708:

whenever I'm in the area, or eating at the Rutherford Grill. It's a beautiful area, especially now when the grapes are ripening.

156: 4720: 3201: 3185: 1832: 1814: 1400: 1016: 311: 4331: 4103: 3218:

ratings to lots of articles. It's something I've done occasionally, but not with the same level of perseverance that you have!

3147: 2550: 2422:

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

2413: 1702:”, a very restricted ethics indeed. A similar, but less formalized, discussion occured between analytic philosopher of ethics 1499: 1292:...makes the article better — don't you think so? According to or not, I am sure that you are doing the best. So, my respects. 3162: 2966: 2536:. Article contains a lots of matter, but badly written. So need good copy editor to do some work. Requesting for your help. -- 2272:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2196:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1225: 1208: 1136: 1126: 1116: 4191: 3561: 3499: 3488: 3260: 2275: 2199: 1418: 186: 4744: 4259: 3659:, that one is dated September 2018. To quote the earwig report page, “Be aware that other websites can copy from Knowledge” 3542:

OK, you must respond to all of them.Thank you for clarifying; I am removing the template in accordance with your statement.

4773: 4736: 4407: 4179: 3766: 3046: 2902: 2816: 2743: 2670: 2596: 1527: 357:

articles for deletion. The creator, Spring12, seems bound and determined to belittle and discount anyone who voted delete.

325: 54: 4491: 1193:-- I will come back to...I think you mean the "homeopathic aggravation;" if so, then once again Dudgeon is a good source. 1047: 74:

I can email you that this article, but you haven't hooked up your email. If you email me (I'm hooked up), I'll send it.

4679: 4665: 2431: 2242: 1782: 4589: 4467: 3417: 2583:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

2147: 2116: 619: 1387:

I think you might be interested in the discussion about Ernst's paper and how to incorporate it into the introduction

822: 611: 525: 505:

If you have any interest in the matter, you are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. --

4517: 3897: 3834: 3142: 1768: 1482: 1024: 666: 273: 680: 406: 3981: 3113: 1580: 437: 366: 191: 4670:

The original page was called "Thelonious Monk Blue Note Sessions". Shall we revert these edits and add citations?

4653:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Complete_Blue_Note_Recordings_of_Thelonious_Monk&oldid=1054449575

4646: 4632: 1886:

Are we dealing with a sock of OM or SA? Same POV (many of which I favor), but same nasty and combative spirit. --

413: 56:

Here's solid evidence that he was a homeopath; this shows that he was a member of the British Homeopathic Society

4403: 4175: 3762: 3342: 3042: 2898: 2812: 2739: 2666: 2592: 2469: 2443: 4578:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Complete_Blue_Note_Recordings_of_Thelonious_Monk&oldid=1054449575

3943:

PS: I'd really like to delete much of the commentary I've made above, but I won't, even though it's embarrassing

1999: 1880: 1199:

a Danish physician, was the 1st US homeopath who emigrated to US in 1825, and not the one listed in the article

26: 4302: 3871: 1827: 1793: 1759: 1446: 1300: 1217:

article a cited reference to the 1807 first mention of the word homeopathy. You may wish to transfer it to the

853: 362: 152: 108: 2377: 1985:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Oscillococcinum&curid=2015570&diff=495600710&oldid=495204159

1407: 372:

Sorry if I upset you with any of the comments I made, I was just confirming the consensus was read correctly.

4294: 3152:

Enja released this album in Germany. Justin Time released it in Canada. Do you know which one came out first?

2356: 2329: 2252:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2180:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2010: 1576: 593: 246: 3859:

Apologies, Burton. Even though I disagree with your edit, I see you did give a reason for it. I missed it.

2006: 1561: 339: 4462: 4377: 4149: 4044: 3806: 3736: 3085: 3017: 2915: 2873: 2795: 2722: 2649: 2545: 1374: 1356: 328:

suggests you may have a ref with current numbers. Could you state the number and cite the statement please?

293: 235: 169:

I thought I would let you know that you might want to rewrite them, or expand the article. Best regards, —

4608: 4568: 951: 4389: 4161: 3842: 3748: 3227: 3172: 3121: 3029: 2885: 2807: 2734: 2661: 2588: 2014: 1112:

London: Henry Turner & Co, 1853. Thought you might like to use this in the article sometime. regards

873:

If the fisrt is true ( according to the source ) then the second is at least misleading. Adlet called it

254: 4016: 2093: 1332: 453: 4310: 4021: 2435: 2228: 2170: 1915: 1313: 1149:

adding many new remedies and greatly expanding the materia medica (e.g. the Bushmaster snake, Lachesis)

1004: 982: 173: 1918:. While the points about UNDUE, RS and FRINGE might be valid, I don't see a POV problem there either. 1775: 1745:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Knowledge takes 1690:

ethics, I am not an expert by any means. About ten years ago, I recall that mathematical philosopher

4590:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genius_of_Modern_Music,_Vols._One_%26_Two&oldid=1015818325

3928: 3780: 3594:, that’s a post dated February 2019, over a decade after the creation of the content in the article. 3237:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

2447: 2396:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Knowledge. It does

2238: 2143: 1512: 829: 819: 637: 358: 203: 148: 98:

My error. I thought it was available online but it isn't (without payment). My offer still stands.

4326: 2318: 1674: 1646: 1202: 4675: 4661: 4642: 4604: 4564: 2541: 1572: 701: 615: 387: 269: 3323: 4487: 3893: 3627: 3238: 3059: 2515: 1958:

says he won't engage on his own talk page either there doesn't seem to any way to communicate.

1860: 1846: 1595: 1230: 1222: 1205: 1168:

use of very highest potencies: 10M, 50M, CM, DM, MM (along with others, not a shift he initiated)

1133: 1123: 1113: 333: 259: 220:? I'm only asking because a biographical article would normally have a person's proper name (i.e 3938: 460: 4458: 4322: 4255: 3854: 3830: 3678: 3646: 3613: 3580: 3547: 3515: 3458: 3425: 3374: 3337: 3138: 3109: 2427: 2373: 2348: 2049: 1995: 1891: 721: 662: 571: 510: 402: 178: 4583: 2426:

administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the

4365: 4137: 4001: 3724: 3005: 2861: 2783: 2710: 2637: 2473: 1478: 1442: 1434: 885: 849: 676: 589: 4476:, and was the first live recording made at the Village Vanguard." while reading through the 4701: 4419: 4376:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4290: 4271: 4148:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3977: 3885: 3735:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3254: 3016:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2923: 2872:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2794:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2721:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2648:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2579:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2314: 2234: 1975: 1746: 1470: 1424: 838: 240: 209:

Your edit is fine; there is no need to contact the three intervening editors in this case.

8: 4671: 4657: 4638: 4615: 4600: 4560: 4545: 4054:

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

3867: 3408: 3223: 2584: 2537: 2465: 2109: 2102: 2095: 1946: 1876: 1557: 1539: 1370: 1352: 1305: 1183:

gave seminal lectures on drug pictures of the materia medica with new emphasis on mentals

1078: 1043: 970: 808: 757: 628: 601: 553: 538: 477: 449: 278: 265: 4307:

combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say

4204: 3257:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1544:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

1155:

he introduced the decimal or x scale of potency, widely used throughout the 19th century

844:

is some evidence that it is not just a placebo, no one understands how it could work."--

4725: 4541: 4483: 4071: 4012: 3934: 3810: 3197: 3158: 3089: 2511: 2423: 2363: 1825: 1791: 1720: 1670: 1642: 1337: 1012: 944: 716:

beautiful buildings, all wonderful sights. I take my wine in non-homeopathic doses ;-)

489: 469: 464: 441: 377: 228:. If so, and you decide you want to rename the article, this is easily done by a move. 161: 4772:

Gosh! I didn't even know there was another one! Thank you, interesting read. Cheers

4716: 4550: 4514: 4454: 4347: 4318: 4251: 4119: 4094: 3919: 3826: 3707: 3674: 3656: 3642: 3634: 3609: 3591: 3576: 3568: 3543: 3525: 3511: 3503: 3454: 3436: 3421: 3404: 3365: 3329: 3314: 3280: 3271:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

3246: 3134: 3105: 2988: 2963: 2844: 2770: 2697: 2624: 2606: 2560: 2551: 2455: 2369: 2336: 2295: 2286:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2219: 2210:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2045: 1991: 1887: 1854: 1698:'s view on mathematical realism relegates ALL discourse on eithics to ONLY be about “ 1365:

view 2, so I'll be pecking away here and there, unless, of course, it gets prod'd...

717: 713: 658: 567: 506: 398: 319: 1156: 586:

Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review

4595: 4396: 4361: 4168: 4133: 4040: 3962: 3950: 3889: 3755: 3720: 3209: 3036: 3001: 2892: 2857: 2779: 2706: 2633: 2580: 2564: 2123: 1591: 1566: 1517: 1474: 1438: 1430: 1414: 1396: 1214: 881: 845: 672: 344: 329: 38: 1840: 1200: 4473: 4267: 3966: 2310: 2162: 2136: 2129: 1764: 1633:

article, in an edit conflict. I don't know how to properly restore your comment.

1238:

About your — respectable, no doubt! — , I must explain this: "being or not being

936:

For your actions on the homeopathy talk page in defending science and wikipedia.

828:

Just a general warning, really, because you're the main person dealing with him.

795: 769: 705: 687: 431: 99: 75: 61: 4445: 4428: 4373: 4145: 3956: 3732: 3242: 3219: 3133:

May your Christmas be filled with miracles and beautiful time. Merry Christmas!

3013: 2869: 2791: 2718: 2645: 2576: 2568: 2460: 2083: 1942: 1872: 1691: 1553: 1362: 1246:, Shakespeare), however I think that the additional data I have written there ( 1074: 1039: 966: 753: 709: 624: 597: 549: 534: 473: 445: 225: 179: 4197: 2018: 646: 500:

Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return

468:

that you want to discuss, then I suggest that you start a new page section on

4584:

https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Complete_Blue_Note_Recordings_of_Thelonious_Monk

4537: 4369: 4280: 4141: 3805:

Hello Brunton, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this

3728: 3193: 3168: 3154: 3084:

Hello Brunton, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this

3009: 2865: 2787: 2714: 2641: 2572: 2525: 2253: 2185: 1820: 1786: 1716: 1711: 1703: 1666: 1638: 1520: 1509: 1295: 1008: 986: 585: 373: 354: 289: 199: 4759: 4712: 4708: 4697: 4624: 4090: 4086: 4058: 3915: 3789: 3660: 3595: 3529: 3495: 3468: 3440: 3396: 3350: 3310: 3306: 3276: 3272: 3177: 3068: 2955: 2532: 2291: 2287: 2215: 2211: 2027: 1959: 1919: 1901: 1850: 1806: 1695: 1652: 1623: 1609: 1491: 1490:

I take it that you didn't notice the words "if anywhere" in that comment.

1453: 1381: 1321: 1312:

Looks good to me, and well-spotted. All of the additions subsequent to the

1089: 1055: 990: 896: 860: 779: 566:

Your last statement sounds like a recipe for an OR and SYNTH violation. --

417: 303: 245:

Hi... sorry for the delay -- currently working overseas. I would have said

224:) unless they are better known by their initials -- such as A. A. Milne or 84: 2343:

Hi - I corrected the error in the title for you, but otherwise, nice work.

4036: 3400: 3389: 1410: 1392: 1306: 1250:) are not cause of confusion. Never did I want this. If you are (or not) 938: 217: 31: 4380:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

4212: 4152:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3739:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3020:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2876:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2798:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2725:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2652:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2497:

Hi Brunton, thanks for changing the plot to present tense, i know about

2389: 1548:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

921: 4618:, by coincidence I was just thinking about this, I'm currently reading 4357:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

4129:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

4023: 3717:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3435:

That one seems to have been copied from the Knowledge article as well,

3250: 2998:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2854:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2304: 2181: 2155: 1730:

File copyright problem with File:Complete quartets with Sonny Clark.jpg

1630: 1504:

Not to mention it being a letter to the editor, and thus not a MEDRS.

1338: 1325: 1247: 1218: 1186:

had a lasting influence on UK and Swiss homeopathy (not much elsewhere)

1003:

26% belive in homeopathy... and "76 percent of believe in God" per a

874: 529: 298:

I thought it might be something like that (although I was guessing not

251: 232: 213: 170: 162: 18: 2073:

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the

1317: 1171:

emphasised case totality, rather than local symptoms or named diseases

1152:

adding several new nosodes (e.g. Lyssin, from the saliva of rabid dog)

302:

tildes - I now find that three gives name but no time/date). Thanks.

4651:

This is that article. It was REPLACED with one of the season albums.

4338: 4227: 4110: 3909:

Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting#Inclusion of conspiracy theories

3814: 3699: 3295: 3093: 2980: 2836: 2761: 2688: 2615: 2324:

A page you started (Jimmy Wilson (blues musician)) has been reviewed!

2261: 1699: 1345:

get the urge, have at. I'll prolly peck away at it here and there...

392: 195: 1749:

very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the

4247: 4243: 4239: 4231: 4077: 4064: 3818: 3097: 2498: 1505: 4755: 4596:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Genius_of_Modern_Music,_Vols._One_%26_Two

1629:

I accidentally deleted a comment of yours on the talk page of the

4235: 3299: 2567:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

2044:

Yes, I found the link that contained the "Withdrawn" wording. --

1277: 1267: 4696:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

4393:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 4165:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3752:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3294:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

3033:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2889:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2530:

Hai, could you please help copyediting this Indian film article

2501:, i don't know why i changed it all to read in the past, me bad 283:"it added the time and date when I signed but not my username." 4531: 4383:

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

4351:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All

4155:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

4123:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

3742:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

3023:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

2879:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

2801:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

2728:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

2655:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

1781:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

4286: 3711:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

2992:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

2490: 2400:

imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

1757:

of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a

653:"Don't drink water - it remembers all the shit it had in it." 2484: 2416:, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is 2257: 1707: 4588:

2021: (the graphic of the volume 1 10" has been deleted):

3914:

I noticed you have offered an opinion but haven't "voted".

2150:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2119:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2066: 4313:

for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the

880:

Besides that it is edit out of the body of the article.--

2848:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

2082:". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! 2062:

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

1661:

of it. It was much work, but I believe changes you made

1180:

gave a detailed commentary on the Organon (his Lectures)

495:

A thread has been started to discuss this whole matter:

4700:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4364: