User talk:Sbharris/archive5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive #5 All messages from the beginning of 2008 to March 22, 2008.

Possibly unfree Image:OswaldChin2.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:OswaldChin2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Narcosis & References

Huge thanks for getting those pesky references looking decent again RexxS (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I'm not sure that the "See also" header is kosher, but what else are you going to do with miscellaneous references used as sources, but without citation at any point in the text? There must be something in the manual of style for it, but if somebody passes by who knows, they'll fix it more easily than I can look it up. That's the way Wikipedia works. Rarely are things fixed totally right at once; they just creep in the correct direction over time, bit by bit. SBHarris 04:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for teaching me how to revert more than one edit at a time. I half included that in the edit summary in hopes someone would enlighten me. Take care. --Breakyunit (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

de nada. You're welcome. SBHarris 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Selenium sulfide

I have edited the article to include chemical info on "selenium sulfide". This is a case of a preparation with a name that sounds like a chemical formula. SeS₂ is a mixture of cyclo-Se_nS_(n-8) compounds. What it most certainly is not is Se=S or S=Se=S as I have seen in many places on the web. There are two CAS #:- 7488-56-4 (SeS₂) and 7446-34-6 (SeS). There is a lot of confusion amongst suppliers regarding which CAS # is used for what. What you get when you order will be a mixture which will analyse to approximately SeS or SeS₂.
I do not know the research paper(s) which triggered the health warning but I would be surprised if the precise chemical content of the sample of "Selenium sulfide" was determined prior to testing. The further difficulty with using proprietary sources of "SeS₂" is that the provenance potentially determines the mix of compounds present. I believe that the health warnings refers to all preparations containing selenium sulfur compounds with overall stoichiometries of SeS and SeS₂ [1]. Knowing that both compounds are mixtures containing similar compounds in different proportions - I guess that the thought process is - test either one, get a bad result - then on the precautionary principle warn on both of them. I have not changed the section. Axiosaurus (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Abuse Report

Thank you for making a report about 75.75.104.77 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Unfortunately, this IP has not been blocked enough times, and therefore does not merit an abuse report. Next time, please make sure that the IP in question has been blocked at least five times in recent history.Original report available at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/75.75.104.77 Rjd0060 (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Messenger Dates

Replied on my talk page. — Nicholas (reply) @ 18:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

The comment by Stephen B Streater in response to your post[2] is likely false since belladonna is poisonous. Homeopathic doses wouldn't be. Thanks for participating. Anthon01 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what doses are "homeopathic" is a bit of a vague line. In general I think that most agree is that they are doses too low to have either poisonous or medicinal effect. Belladonna, of course, is poisonous only in a certain dose ("Only the dose makes the poison"-- Paracelsus). Certain doses are medicinal-- they give you a dry mouth but otherwise do other good things like stop certain dysrhythmias or work as an antidote to nerve gas or whatever. And atropine (active agent in Atropa belladonna) is still used in standard medicine. Doses smaller than those medicinally active, would be active only "homeopathically." SBHarris 01:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Help template

aah.. - {{help}} contains a category (Category:Wikipedians looking for help, or something like that, only it has the [[ around it so it works, if you get my drift), and adding {{help}} to your user/talk page will thus add the page to that category. Wikipedia:Template namespace may be useful, as well as m:Help:Template. That said, I learnt all I know about templates from observation, so I might write up a User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Templates for dummies one of these days. Until then, cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What say I now

What was that latest post to my talk page, an "I told you so"? I stand by my actions. Several of us informed him in perfectly acceptable and Wikipedia-approved ways that his edits, as made, were not in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies. He proceeded to completely ignore the increasingly vehement warnings, and opted instead to simply make the exact same edit. He never once claimed to be T.H. Shaffer to me, instead just mentioning that he was "a developer" on one of the edit summaries. On IP edit patrol, I see hundreds of claims a month that these people are friends of someone, that they are someone, that they have intimate knowledge of something. Wikipedia is not based on TRUTH, it is based on VERIFIABILITY. Even now, if he is who he says he is, that's great - and I don't really find it some great "honor" as you do. Fine, at least now the contributer is citing his sources, as I, JForget, and J.delanoy all told him to do. No one "bit" him, no one personally attacked him, stop making a bigger deal out of this than what actually happened. Tanthalas39 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• There are too many issues here for completeness in answer. Yes, JForget and J.delanoy reverted Shaffer on Liquid ventilation, and so did I for that matter. And everybody warned him about refs and the issue of verifiability (none more than I). But you were the only person who threatened to block the man! And you're not even an administrator, as JForget is! So new you are, and already so unknown ;). FYI, that's WP:BITE when applied to a non-vandal IP newbie. And it's particularly ironic (see funny), coming from somebody who ostensibly is looking for people to mentor and coach, ala your talk page. If you're really as ambitious for wikipower as you come across, you're going to want better stuff than this to come up at your RfA. So you can "stand by your actions" or perhaps you can learn something instead. Up to you.

  Shaffer did make comments suggesting who he was, but you have to know something of the subject to have understood them. I explained elsewhere about that. You might not find it an honor to have somebody who is an expert editing an article, but if not, you should. We're all ignorant about most things, and most of us consider it an honor to have the opinions of an expert, when we can find one.

  As for Wikipedia working on verifiability, not truth, that's a can of worms. The short answer is that Wikipedia needs and wants to have the truth, but since it is run by anonymous blowhards, it doesn't know how to get it, except by appeal to outside published authority (if you look into WP:V you'll find it's all about authority-- it's just somebody else's authority). Which is fine, but it forgets that knowledge-authority requires respect wherever you find it, inasmuch as truth is not always published (I'm telling you this and you're in the pharm development industry???). Notwithstanding that a template exists for "need an expert to review this article," Wikipedia's renowned disrespect for actual authorities who come here would not survive as an attitude in either business or academia (or for that matter, encyclopedia or science publishing), and only succeeds at all because Wikipedia is a childish creature of no responsibilities, with a childish disregard for any work-product for which it must be responsible. And is often run by adolescents who enjoy thumbing their noses anonymously at everybody else, especially academics. And also (let us admit it) because Wikipedia actually does benefit (without acknowledging the fact) from the writing of many people who know what they are talking about, editing articles in the spirit of improvement WP:IAR, and only providing cites when there's a dispute. Most of the true content here is still citation-free, for that reason. The rest would be a mishmash of cites and disconnected hash, if had to be edited by people who didn't understand their subjects, instead of experts in many cases willing to take liberties to clean up nonsense. Take a look at Lie Algebra, for example. One day, Wikipedia will have to face up to the need for expert review, but for the time being, it functions in fantasyland, documenting pop culture and barely tolerating the rest. But that doesn't mean the way it functions, which is something like a K12 classroom with a missing teacher and many bullies, is a good thing. In many ways, Wikipedia is what it is not because of its policies, but in spite of them.SBHarris 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. Your condescending attitude is most disagreeable. I'm the only one that threatened to block him? I was just giving the next level template warning, as I've done hundreds of times. I'm not an administrator? True, but I can (and do) easily report IP abuse to admins who do it for me. I don't regret this at ALL for any upcoming RfA. I honestly don't think you have quite the grasp of Wikipedia policies that you think you do, but you seem to do a good job, so that's fine. This has probably been blown WAY out of proportion - thanks to some sort of personal feelings between you and I. Let's just leave it at this - Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So, another Wednesday night

Hey. I saw your "too heck with it" edit, and okay, I'll grudgingly admit that perhaps you did have a point. I don't agree with everything you say, and I don't even agree with all your basic viewpoints, but it's obvious to me that you have Wikipedia's larger goals in mind - as do I. You might not believe it, but I try very, very hard to uphold Wikipedia policy, not only in the black-and-white areas but in the gray, blue, purple and clear areas. What do you say that we just let this one go; we can both still claim to be mostly in the right, but I don't really care for an enemy here on Wiki, especially one so close to my career. I sincerely apologize for my part in this argument. The next disagreement we can fight to the death. Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, deal. All that is left is choice of lirpa, morte, or bat'leth. SBHarris 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hal O. Anger

Thanks for the clarifications. However, your links went to aircraft, not isotopes! I fixed them.

Why don't you write a stub about Hal O. Anger, who invented the gamma camera in the 1950s and pioneered internal imaging? He died about a decade ago, but I don't have the details. You could likely get it from the Society of Nuclear Medicine, of which I presume are a member [like myself]. Oldnoah (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

There's already a Hal Anger stub, which I fixed your link for, by creating a Hal O. Anger redirect. The aircraft: Oh, I see, the F-18. Wups. Thanks. SBHarris 05:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks too for the Hal Anger correction. Oldnoah (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah

question (about physics)

could you please explain to me how matter gets "converted" into energy during the process of nuclear reactions? :p BriEnBest (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A tall order. Matter is a bad word with no definition. As for "mass," it actually doesn't get converted to energy, ever. What happens is that mass which has mass because it's potential energy and just sits there passive, is converted to energy which still has mass, but is a lot more active: radiation, kinetic energy, and the things that come from that like heat and sound and blast. But the mass never changes. If you put a 20 kiloton nuke in a superbox on a scale and weighed it, then blew it up, the scale wouldn't budge. The interior of the box would be a plasma now at millions of degress with a lot of x-rays and heat and pressure and so on. So you see? Mass can't leave until you "open" the box. Closed systems never change mass in the same frame. Open a transparent superstrong window and a beam of X-rays would leak out. After a while the X-rays would draw a energy from the box, it would cool, and loose a gram of mass. But then the beam of X-rays would have the mass, and whatever absorbed them would heat up so much that it would gain a gram of mass. So there's no getting away from it.

In a bomb, the "mass" that seems to go away is potential energy stored in two kinds of fields holding nucleons together and trying to push them apart. When the things blows, some of both of these fields gets turned into kinetic energy of the fragments. No neutrons or protons disappear! Just the fields that push or pull them. But after, they're moving fast, and that's the "energy" associated with the passive mass of the fields. A gram of field gets turned into a gram of kinetic energy. Things moving fast have more mass. They keep it till they slow, and they whatever slows them picks up the mass associated with their kinetic energy, and so on. SBHarris 07:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

really? so matter doesn't get converted into "energy" - just different kinds of matter (or mass). i heard one time that "light is pure energy" this doesn't seem true since gravity (black holes) still affect them. what about this? they still have mass, so they are not "pure energy", right? BriEnBest (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

i am wondering how i might try to describe this: (maybe you could help me) - i want to say, basically, that mass (matter) is to space what energy is to time. does this make sense, even? and if so, could you tell me, well, what you think of this, or maybe help me out to put it into better, more physics-friendly terms, or perhaps correct me if i am wrong?  :) BriEnBest (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

All energy has mass. I have no idea what "light is pure energy" means. Light is not attracted by gravity because it has mass, but simply because it moves in space, which is bent by gravity. A photon has no rest mass, but light is never at rest, so that makes no difference. A single photon has an undefined invariant energy, because its energy varies with the observer (this is the same as saying the energy can be anything you want). But types of energy which are not subject to this kind of latitude (light trapped in a box of mirrors, say), all have a certain mass which you can't get rid of by change of reference frame. You can make this mass larger to any extent you like by moving with regard to it, but you can't pick a frame which will make it SMALLER than a certain minimum. That minimum is associated with a mass m = E/c^2. For two or more photons not traveling in the same direction, they always have a mass. And there's always a frame in which they have minimal energy, but it's never zero. In that frame, their mass is the minimum mass (the system rest mass), and it's the same mass one you'd weigh if they were trapped in a box.

And BTW, mass is not to space what energy is to time. Rather, momentum is to space what energy is to time. SBHarris 00:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

how is Momentum to space what energy is to time? may i argue for my original statement for a moment? it seems (to me) as though mass bends space via gravity - likewise time is "bent" by energy, is it not? (although i do not completely understand how this happens or the specifics..) also mass (well, matter...) is actually defined by space. likewise energy can only be defined if there exists time. i don't know if you have time to go over all of this with me, and i do not claim that my understanding is correct, but it would be very nice if you could continue to help me. thanks,  :) BriEnBest (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

i have another question - it's along the lines of relativity... i need to start with newton's (one of the three) law, which implies that in order to go forward, we must push something in the opposite direction. now, in relativity, it is possible to basically go "farther into the future" than we would normally. here i am thinking of time as a dimension - like forward and backward. now, i don't understand what causes the person to go farther into the future than he would normally, except that he would have to move close to the speed of light for a certain amount of time, but i don't know why this CAUSES him to move "farther" into the future. My question is: does newton's law apply? is something "pushed backward" for the person to go forward? in effect, travelling into the past? i know that there is an inconsistency here, and that it is "impossible" to travel into the past, i'm just not sure where. BriEnBest (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get this garbage of an explanation. Let's face it, we do not really know what mass is. We haven't found the Higgs boson! Mass is just something attributed by Newton to his theories- inertia and gravitational, and as far as experiments can see, are of equal value. 81.159.84.158 (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your very good block on 151.198.170.29

Who has been grossly vandalizing the argon page also. Look, could we have this guy blocked for longer than 3 days, just to allow the rest of us to get work done? As far as I can see, NOTHING but vandalism has issued from this IP, EVER. So why are we coddling "it" when there are thousands of indefinitely long blocks per month issued against good faith nameusers who are not vandals, but are simply disagreeing with somebody? This whole block policy is so completely ass-backwards that it's not funny. People who obviously care about writing the right thing as to mouth off to a admin about something (often with good reason!) are banned. Whereas people who CLEARLY mean to destroy and disrupt the work by deleting stuff or writing obsenities, are blocked for 72 hours again and again and again. Madness! So please, don't 3-day block this guy the next time. Block for 3 times the time between his last vandalism and the one before. Then up from there. On the very long shot that this is a shared school IP, it's up to the guys on the other end to do something about the little delinquents, not you. SBHarris 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I do see what you are saying. It is practice not to issue long blocks to IP addresses because they are, in most cases, dynamic. You are also right that the vast majority of edits from the IP have been vandalism. If this IP comes up again, I would block for at least a week. It does not appear to be a school IP. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. But it's a fairly simple process to infer if an IP is dynamic: you look to see if EVERYTHING that issues from it is vandalism. If you have 50 cases going back for a year, it's not a dynamic IP, unless every single person using that ISP happens to be a wikivandal. In any case, this entire argument is moot, since when have pissed-off administrators, in defense of their vanity or power, ever cared about blocking IP's, or even whole ranges of IPs?? In the Wordbomb/Overstock fiasco, a whole dynamic IP range was blocked, effectively taking out the ISP Broadcom in Utah, denying Wikipedia access to a whole town, just to get at one guy. Why? Because this one guy who works for Overstock.com had made a wikipedia administrator mad by threatening to expose realworld administrator identities. The administrators care about themselves and their power far more than damage to the encyclopedia. You could erase 100 articles and write "JON is GAY!" and not get that response. You know what I'm saying is the truth. SBHarris 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I just don't like to use the idea "oh, someone, else is doing it for something (arguably) less serious, therefore I'm going to too." I issue lots of 3 hour blocks, rarely more than 72 hours. It's not really a big deal if you've got an admin who's prepared to block quickly. And does it really prevent you doing work? Just ignore it. And I happen to consider revealing private identities a Very Big Thing Indeed. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I should butt into the conversation or not... ?? but it is my personal opinion that there should be a policy against banning / suspending people for no reason... BriEnBest (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is, of course (do you have a case in mind?). It's just that the reasons given are often quite subjective and nebulous. The most clear intent to harm the encyclopedia is vandalism, and most of the worst vandals are from IPs and are rarely indefinitely blocked or banned. But there's not reason why they shouldn't be. An IP is just as capable of asking for an unblock as anybody else. It's double standards. SBHarris 16:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

not on wikipedia... a different wiki site (regarding a certain video game i used to be into...), but it was definately a dilemna that could happen here, and it seems often does. the dilemna is that basically a single author disagreeing (rightfully) with a number of other editors. there is little to no mediation of what quickly turns into an argument, and (not on this wiki site) sometimes an admin takes the side against the single author. eventually the author gets banned or suspended, even though he has done nothing wrong, but because he is arguing for his opinion against "so many" people who disagree with him, even if he is "actually" right - indeed the "masses" often have like misconceptions... BriEnBest (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Feynman book cover photo

Did you speedily delete Image:Feynman-book-cover-pic.jpg, or was it subjected to a deletion review that I missed? I ask, because as a book cover it certainly would have passed the WP:RAT test, and I think should have been given a chance to do so. As is, you wiped out the main photo illustrating the bio of the man! What was the rush? SBHarris 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Um...I may have deleted it, I don't really remember very well because I've been doing a lot of images. But if I did, it wasn't a speedy delete, I have been deleting a lot of images today, but they've all been from categories that are missing something and are seven days old. Or if it was a speedy delete then it was a total freak accident. But considering that I also hid the image on his page, it probably did have some seven-day old tag on it. Melesse (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Why remove the pronuciation of methemoglobin?

I thought that since hemoglobin was linked in the very first sentence it made it pretty clear that the correct pronunciation was met + the pronunciation of hemoglobin. If you think either the pronunciation of hemoglobin or the link between methemoglobin and hemoglobin is unclear feel free to add the IPA notation, I myself am not well-versed in IPA and the hemoglobin page doesn't have an IPA so I didn't bother. --Sgt. Salt (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff on SBT page

Thanks for going with Sask there on the SBT page - I am frankly a little bewildered by him. He seems completely fixated on establishing that Oswald fired three bullets that hit and can't seem to see the problems entailed when we start the clock as late as he suggests. And he seems to want to dismiss physical evidence if it doesn't match the witness testimony he embraces. But he obviously knows a lot on the subject... Just don't know what to make of the guy. Perhaps I should just shut up... Canada Jack (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We should figure out a way to archive this, but some threads have been going for years. Well, may be when it quiets down. Don't quit! It's amazing how much you can learn, arguing this out. I'd never noticed that Connally's wrist drops completely and limply, as though he's completely lost all strength in the wrist. And this just after he's supposed to pull his hat down with a force more than 15 lbs! Doen't work for me. His wrist is broken, even though he keeps the hat through the whole thing. SBHarris 05:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff on this "lean" issue. Sask did me a favour by locating the WC volumes which print various reenactment frames, though he linked to z255 where JFK is sitting erect. I quickly found the fatal head shot and Muchmore film which seems to back up my contention (see what I just added on the page).

I'm not sure his "lean" has ever been much of an issue anywhere, so it's interesting that it is here. Here's another little tidbit that may play into the issue of JFK's expression - Connally's as well - as they emerge from behind the freeway sign. They both to be looking at the camera, towards Zapruder. But in fact they both may have been looking at something rather odd - the man with the umbrella who was, at that moment, lifting it and spinning it. Now, Connally might have thought to himself "what the hell?" but Kennedy likely knew the reference and was in the midst of a scowl or some similar expression. It was a reference to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, and the Kennedy role in that, and the umbrella as a symbol of that was well enough known that Kennedy might have perceived the insult. Pure conjecture, there is no way to know this, but I mention it as a possible explanation for JFK's quizzical look as he emerges, one which others have suggested he was already reacting to a bullet strike earlier than circa z224. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bokononism edit!

I reckon perhaps the most gracious way to deal with the proposed deletion of this article may be for you yourself to edit the quoted material, with a view to its value being preserved but its bulk being reduced?Benny the wayfarer (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to do that. We could keep the sayings and the best calypso, for example. SBHarris 23:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixing periodic tables

Actually, I don't have magic powers. I just have an account on Commons, and I'm actually not that good of an SVG editor. You should ask User:Atanamir to fix it instead, since he's the one who converted the PNGs to SVGs. He's made other errors too, like on Boron's periodic table image. → FISDOF9 04:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Boron's SVG showed an incorrect number of protons and neutrons, so I changed it back to PNG. – FISDOF9 04:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

Hello, after seeing your comments at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_32#all_sides_can_agree_in_principle_to_an_orderly_process_of_making_a_determination_of_what_to_do, I thought you might be interested in this page, Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. Although it is currently phrased in terms of delegating authority, it will probably be rewritten soon to clarify that it is part of an advisory process, not a voting process. 71.63.91.68 (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

periodic tables

Hi Sbharris,

Wow, iut's been a long time since i've worked on these =P. Doesn't lithium already have an illustration that's SVG? Lithium. Is there something wrong with it? Also, for Iodine, are you saying you DON'T want the 'N' abbreviation for Neutrons? It matches all the other ones I've seen... Thanks atanamir (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland evidence page

Re this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Sauce_for_goose.2C_sauce_for_gander:_where.27s_Weiss.27s_wife_on_WP.3F

• The above thread will stay closed and I hope we don't see any more similar threads. There is no need to hypothesize about RL off wiki interaction. Absent a specific request from an arb to provide such input, contact myself or an arb if you truly feel a need to bring this material up-you could also email it to the arb email list. User:Jayvdb will be making a workshop proposal on this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? We already have similar threads. Why are Jimbo and Cool Hand Luke and G-Dett all allowed to hypothesize about Weiss' off-wiki interaction, and I'm not? There's not a bit of evidence presented by either of them on this case, which isn't explained better by what I suggest. In fact, if you read G-Dett's allusions to the Earp Vendetta Ride page (one which I actually created, BTW), you'll see he missed something obvious. Earp was a gentile who married a Jew. Anyway, I think you owe me an apology for calling my ideas "silly" in public, while the rest of this hypothesizing, which is even sillier, is allowed. I'm waiting. SBHarris 02:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not call anything silly, see the edit history, that was someone else. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me. I just thought it was an inappropriate place for an conversation about internet epistemology. Cool Hand Luke 03:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Say what? "Internet epistemology" is the entire topic when it comes to who's a sock of who-else, and how we're to know. Or did I miss what this whole page is about? SBHarris 04:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we're not allowed to put any more "silliness" on the Arb pages, I'll ask the question here: Samiharris and SBharris - have you had, or are you in, a conjugal relationship with any involved parties? I've examined your usernames and detected a statistical correlation, R=0.94 :) Franamax (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Straight answer: Good god, no. There are lots of Harrises in this world, and my last name, at least, is my real one (doubt this is true for SockSammi). I don't know Weiss or anybody Weiss knows, so far as I know (I'm on the West Coast and I gather he's on the East). Though the six degrees of separation thing is always interesting to play. Anyway, I think my original point remains a valid one, and hasn't been discussed anywhere. SBHarris 04:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mine was intended to be a humorous question, with a little extra humour on the statistics. Yours is a valid and serious point however I think there is a concerted effort here to avoid speculation on real-life identities. Incongruous as that is in any case where reality comes into play on Wikipedia, especially in this case where real identities and activities are at the heart of the matter and being alluded to in the evidence, I will always defer to Wikipedians' attempts to skirt the issue. I think you raised a valid point, and I think that point was shut down with equal validity. There was nothing particularly silly about it other than the entire silliness of pseudonymity. That happens to be the basic foundation of the project within which we all must work, regardless of how silly it gets. We are each and all free to create our own projects with more accommodating rules. I'm sticking with this one.

Anyway, I was just making a little joke about names and statistics, three hours after I read your post yesterday it hit me. No seriousity intended. Cheers!

Okay, no harm, no foul. Anonymity has been the source of much evil on Wikipedia, as well as (ironically) some of the passion of Wikipedians to write about other people's lives (BLP) and other people's livelihoods (articles on publically traded companies, which which there isn't nearly as much consideration shown as in BLP). This is madness. These problems are not going to be solved with WP:V and WP:Whatever. Opinions will always differ. That's why related wiki problems in arguing about contentious topics like religion or ethnicity or whether or not JFK was killed by one sniper, have to be presented as in court trial, with a concerted attempt to be (somewhat) fair to all points of view (except extreme minority ones). Even the Catholics choose a devil's advocate, when putting somebody up for Sainthood. The worst criminals get defence attornies, and so on. Wikipedia has not learned this at all levels, and that's why the Overstock-type wars are destined to keep going, and to get worse. Why can't everybody see this??

The stock market operates on ads, which are closely kept track of by the SEC and FTA. In opposition are consumer reports and stock analysts. Nobody censors anybody, really. If you wish to "pump and dump" a crummy penny stock, there are many ways to get around the rules. And naked short selling is a potent way to counteract such bull. We need both. So, we should discuss both fairly. If Overstock needs a puff page, with a summary of criticism on it, AND a separate criticism page, with a summary of the puff page, well, that's within policy. We did it with the Apollo moon landings and the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. What prevents us from learning the lessons we learned THERE, and applying them HERE? SBHarris 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, here we are, in a system deliberately designed as open-outcry, pseudonymity and semi-anonymity, internal and imperfect checks and balances; a grand experiment that is the sixth-most individually visited website on the planet. Pseudonymity will always be a fact of life here and will bring with it all its limitations. Lets just be happy the bulk of peoples' energies goes towards the Pokemon and pro-wrestling articles!

I'll agree that the problems won't be solved with WP:Policy's but I'll disagree with your implication that they can be better solved with any alternate system. Do you advocate a system of experts? I'd have to mention that mezzanine collapse in the hotel in the US Midwest or those pesky Space Shuttle explosions. (Or in your own field, take your pick...) Presented as in court trial? Well, thank god that OJ Simpson went free and too bad about Guy Paul Morin. I'm not even going to touch how fair the Catholic Church has been over the last few decades or centuries.

As to the case at hand, GWH has to my view been a fairly effective advocate on the side of reality (translate: CHL should be using the phrase "strong anecdotal evidence" rather than any use of "statistical", "random", etc.) and voices are being raised on all sides. A key difference is that in the real world systems, the defendant has selective access to resources based on ability to pay; and the system is geared toward "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt". These are key concepts, but you cannot demonstrate that any more justice is truly delivered in the real world - (proportion of prison population comprised of indigenous peoples vs. general population)

I'm not even sure what side everyone is on in this Arb and the positions seem to have been derived from off-wiki interactions. I assume you know how the presumed identity was established off-wiki and understand the distastefulness in those methods and agree with the "excluded evidence" aspects of the case. I do agree with your comments on the economic theory aspects and your interpretation of NPOV, puff-page with criticism, critic-page with puff, if that's what is necessary. But what are the lessons learned from the (faked :) moon landings? And how do those lessons apply here?

"Progress is man's indifference to the lessons of history" (?) Franamax (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see pseudonymity as a "fact of life" that necessarily has to survive here. We can dispense with it as easily as we dispense with it when you log onto your bank or brokerage accounts. No credit needed. Nearly all the problems here stem from people having no personal responsibility, and thus acting as people do when they don't. Just see the damage done when people are permitted to wear face masks to a party, vs. not. Wikipedia doesn't even have as much oversight as do letters to the editor of your local paper.

  I do advocate a system of experts. And precisely because that is how we make progress in the rest of the world, and it's a mistake to compare real models with utopian ideals, instead of with the available other real choices. To paraphrase Churchill, democracy has many problems, but the alternatives are worse. For every engineering disaster, there are improvements next time-- are you going to argue that technology doesn't improve? Or that you have a way to make it improve faster? Some of your examples illustrate the problem directly: the shuttle disasters were results of failure to listen to engineers (the only experts nature respects). As for the rest, again you compare reality to utopia. In the 20 years in the US before 9/11 we have about 2300 fatalities total for 8 TRILLION passenger flights, and god knows how many passenger miles. In a recent year we didn't have ANY. We don't compare the 2300 deaths to zero, but to what has come before in aviation history, and to what the toll has been with autos, and so on.

  It's rather the same with courts. I won't argue that justice is swayed by money/time and passion, but so equally it is on Wikipedia! PLUS many additionals ones: star chamber hearings, anonyomous accusers, defense gagging, a lack of due process with punishment handing out before adequate appeal or clear guidelines evenly applied, and so on. Whether Justice is delivered in the real work is beside the point: at least the real world looks at its statistics. Wikipedia couldn't even begin to see if it works better or worse. From a procedural point of view, it's far worse. Outcomes measurements haven't even been suggested, except for a few recent suggestons that we collect some data on who gets stomped/blocked, and why (prelim results are horrid).

  Lessons learned from the faked moon landings and the articles on homeopathy, is that it's possible to construct an encyclopedia in which a lot more people feel fairly treated, since their side of the argument is told, not surpressed. Which is what clearly happened with Overstock, like it or not. Was this Overstock's "fault"? In warfare, and in most human relations, much morality depends on who starts the fight. In this case, Overstock felt attacked and then muzzled, following which they then decended into open warfare. But hey, that's what happens when you first attack and then muzzle people: they tend to fight back and fight dirty. If Wikipedia doesn't want to be engaged in continuous total war, sort of like the US, it had better learn to quit treading on toes. I advocate NO BLP, except for people famous enough for paper encyclopedias. This would be a good rule to follow for publically traded companies. We don't need the hassle, and we certainly cannot swim these fundmental stock analysis waters without subject-matter expertise. But we seem determined to do it, almost masochistically. Damn if I know why. Lack of empathy by anonymous kids for real world adults with adult problems, including buisness problems, I think. The little snots. SBHarris 08:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I've used the word "statistical," but if you believe incidental numbers make the observations worse for some reason, that's your right. Cool Hand Luke 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The silliness was not in you comment. It seems to me it would have to be W, or perhaps his wife (as you said), or less likely in very close best man or something. The silliness was in the replies—the first, which was a joke, and the second, which was a diversion into epistemology on the internet. Cool Hand Luke 06:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so. I could NOT SEE that, since MY stuff had been taken down as well. So how come you-all couldn't leave my paragraph up, and delete the "silliness"? SBHarris 06:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's all still there, it's just under a hat, so you have to click to see it. We use hats to discourage further discussion. Your comment is a possibility, but it's not clear how there could be evidence either way, and the early responses showed there wouldn't be much promise to the thread. Cool Hand Luke 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sbharris, thank you for the added info on Wyatt Earp! There is a touch of the artist in ol' Mantan, no? The socking has become crankish by now but early on he loaded every rift with ore.

For the record I didn't think your post was silly. It has the advantage of a kind of Eureka-like simplicity. As for me when an idea has legs I let it walk around on them and don't take to shaving 'em with no Occam's Razor. But that's me. At any rate my guess is that your post struck some as off-key because (a) bringing in spouses and loved ones, even if in an innocuously abstract and speculative way like you did, might seem to some to cross a line wiki-investigations as a matter of principle shouldn't cross; and (b) it might ultimately be inconsequential whether "it's the wife." Sock-puppetry is always ready to shade into meat-puppetry, and vice-versa, and where exactly this does or does not happen is beyond what we can know with any certainty or consequence in an online environment. But this, as Luke says, is a question of internet epistemology.

When the New Republic 's Lee Siegel was caught praising himself lavishly via a sockpuppet in the comment section of his column, he was fired, criticized and ridiculed, etc., but in a subsequent interview with the New York Times, he waved off any soul-searching and said look, "Every man is a hero to his alias." Brilliant! Great line. He won my forgiveness and enduring affection with that one. Weiss almost won the same from me when I discovered the intricate hidden pattern of his own self-love: his sense of his own vigilante bravado in taking on the mafia and wall street is shaped by the story of the Arizona Project, which it 'rhymes' with, so to speak; and both of these are in turn shaped by the deeper myth and more resonant rhyme of the Earp vendetta ride. And because Weiss has a touch of the artist in him, he couldn't help but leave traces and clues attesting to the elegance of his conception; and Tombstone is its luminous touchstone. Earp's posse rounded up in Tombstone in 1882 is the precursor to the IRE posse rounded up for the "Arizona project" in 1976, which in turn is the precursor to Weiss's posse rounded up for "Project Klebnikov" in 2005; which in turn, finally, is the precursor for the posse of sockpuppets – each with their connections to Tombstone – that Mantanmoreland began to round up on the semi-lawless frontier of Wikipedia in the spring of 2006.

But Siegel's comment is also a reminder that spousal love can't hold a candle to self-love. How many men are heroes to their wives? To ask that question is to answer it. Robert Louis Stevenson knew this when in the diary section of Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde, Jeckyl describes how Hyde "was knit to him closer than a wife." Stevenson's great book, incidentally, understood something about the expanding sphere of anonymity within the modern city, and how the tension between this anonymity and the Victorian obsession with social reputation could create fertile ground for multiple identities. A prescient insight, from the vantage point of the internet age.

Nice article you started there on Earp's vendetta ride. Love it.--G-Dett (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, G-Dett. The more common saying is that no man is a hero to his butler. Men are quite often heros to their new wives (and remember Weiss' wife is new)-- it's only later that we get the Jason & Medea thing and the War of the Roses divorces.

  Pen names, nom de plumes, nom de guerres, and so on, have a long and fine history which is detailed in the Wikis on them. The Federalist Papers were written by several men under the house pen name of Publius, probably to protect the guilty. Authors using sockpuppet names to praise their own works and deride others, are not unknown (one thinks of Edgar Allan Poe, and so on [3]).

  In Wikipedia, nom de guerres are all but encouraged, to the point that the practice of "outing" an editor by connecting them with their real world name, is a punishable offence. Unless we're in full witchhunt after a sock of somebody who is also real-name editing, go figure. But Wikipedia wants to do this kind of thing, yet avoid the inevitable problems of nom de plumes--- to have their cake and eat it, too. And worse still, Wikipedia does this hypocritically, by claiming that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy; yet at the same time proving this is not the case by falling all over themselves at the unfairness of one person "voting" twice on an issue, or even giving two opinions on the same issue. Well, you can't have it both ways. If Wikipedia is not a democracy, two opinions on two facets of the same matter, given by the same person, should not make a bit of difference. Is it the argument itself that counts, or isn't it? If it is, and Wikipedia is not a democracy but a discussion in which best reasoning wins, it should make no more difference if one person gives two opinions than if one author writes two short stories for the same magazine issue, but uses pennames to avoid overexposure (Heinlein, Stephen King, etc.)

  Personally, I don’t think anybody really thinks it's more of an invasion to suggest that Weiss's wife is editing under some username, than that HE is. We and I don't know her name, and so it's really not much of a privacy invasion-- certainly if it is, it's made up for in benefit, as an explanation for why Weiss appears to be using sockpuppets. I too, am a fan of letting ideas with legs walk under their own power to see how far they go by themselves. I was simply upset that this idea didn't get even that chance.

  "Meatpuppets" as you may know, are an entirely separate issue, about which I've written a lot on the WP:SOCK TALK page. The problem with "meatpuppet" policies (at least for non-procedural issues that don't require Wikipedia-editing-experience to have a good opinion, goes) is that they really are profoundly antidemocratic-- to the point of counting any two people with the same opinion as one person, if one person is "new" and cannot be proven to be an actual sock. This assumes that newbies have no free will, and should be treated as children, or mental defectives. There is even a "submarine" punishment policy that says that remedies for "meatpuppets" shall be the same as for sockpuppets under certain conditions, a policy which is in explicit contradiction to the idea of WP:BITE. Somebody's trying to get around that, by not saying directly that they'd like to block meatpuppets for opinions they don't like.

  If you want the epiphany of antidemocracy, you should see the prohibitions on Wikipedia against "vote canvassing" or "vote stacking", which apply even to people who demonstrably are separate people. Basically, it says that people with the same opinion don't count if they've been recruited-- even when everybody denies that any formal VOTE is being taken (i.e., we're not talking about RfA's etc). One can imagine what would happen if somebody suggested that it's wrong or unfair to have "voter registration drives" among the "wrong sort" of people in the real world, because of how the newly registered people in the Projects or on the factory floor (or wherever) are likely to vote, when they Do vote. (Gosh, maybe black people, say, might be more likely to vote for democrats, and specifically for Obama? See, no free will at all). Ah, wouldn't some people who think of themselves as "liberals" here on WP, be red-faced if they were caught opposing get-out-the-vote drives like that, in the "real" world. Yet here on Wikipedia, it's actually a policy that this kind of thing is wrong and bad.

  But wait, these people will say-- it's not a democracy here, so it's okay to be against it. But again, the problem of wanting it both ways: It it's not a democracy, sock and meatpuppet problems take care of themselves automatically, without need of policing at all. If we're not voting, but merely taking note of best arguments (lumping people with the same opinion together), then numbers of opinions, and numbers of separate people expressing them, should not make any difference. It's the ideas themselves we care about, not who floats them, or the raw number of how many individuals back which idea. And the importance of idea over personality, or over reputation of person or personage, is either true or it isn't. We do things by reputation of editor now-- why doesn't that continue to hold if the "editor" has socks? Somebody has to bite the bullet one way or the other. Alas, it's a problem few are willing to face, because whatever they do, they may end up not liking the result. There's dishonesty at every level, here. SBHarris 22:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding your "defense" at the mantanmoreland Rfar, I think it is good that you are taking a hard look at some of conclusions/inferences folks are drawing. Based on the high profile (on and off site) of this issue it behoves us to make every effort to be correct. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

an apology from a minor editor

With humblest apologies to I am user:sbharris = SBHarris (Steven B. Harris), it seems I have been mis-spelling your handle at the current arbcom case. This may be dyslexia, or other malady, it is not malicious! :) This user will be happy to certify, or reveal off-line real name, at some time in the future, and appreciate your stance. Happy to hear from you at any time, though user;newbyguesses remains for now, a wikichicken. Newbyguesses - Talk 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No sweat, I'm not sensitive about it. Feel free to go back and fix. Or not. SBHarris 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I have fixed all my typos, I think. um,You aren't samiharris, are you? Newbyguesses - Talk 01:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Everybody asks me that. Why in the world would I want a sock who has my last name? And who is obviously on NYC time (as you see from CoolHandLuke's graph), forcing me to get up early in the morning (which I hate) to make me look like the East Coast Mafia? Feh. No way. Any socks I set up will have Gentleman's Hours (not farmer's hours), and that for PST (California) time. SBHarris 01:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Lucky you, keeping gentleman's hours. I am up with the bakers myself these days, just keeping up with the arbcom case. Missing my sleep i am, unless the puter's down. Hope i don't say anything too silly while suffering sleep deprivation. Still, the weather is great, it was 45 degs, in Brisbane yesterday, but it wasn't too bad at all, for a Saturday. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An Ausie! I've got your country on my bucket list. But am stuck next year only going to Palau and Yap (pity me). And I've been to Fiji, but not New Zealand. The diver's disease of seeing countries only for their coral. You'd think with flying across all that Pacific I've have seen Australia, but no. So I'm going to wait till I have at least a month. Say, is it worth going clear out to Perth in the West? It just looks like a major city out in the middle of nowhere. Can't I see that stuff in the East, while I'm diving the Great Barrier Reefs? BTW it was 45 degrees here, also. Fahrenheit. And rainy. Just right for the hot tub in the back yard. SBHarris 01:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

<-- Yep, I am an Aussie. Well, there is the Great Barrier Reef, by all accounts that would be the best bet, and the Whitsundays in my part of the world. Also, for diving, I believe the Solomon Islands are good. In Western Australia the best marine environment is probably to the north of Perth, I am thinking Monkey Mia, though i haven't been there myself. When I visited Perth (1973) it was a sleepy, dryish place. Now there is a yachting colony at Fremantle. (Remember when Australia II won the America's Cup?) . If you fly into Brisbane, or Coolangatta better, that is the tourist strip, known as the Gold Coast. Or, north of Brisbane, the Sunshine Coast.

I went to Fiji, on my honeymoon in 1988. Also to Mount Hutt in N.Z, for the skiing, which was excellent, in 1990. Best of luck with your travels, I don't get around much anymore, but it is all good. If you want further information on australia, just ask. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 03:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This appears on talk:Newbyguesses. Hope you find it amusing. --Newbyguesses - Talk 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see

I think I know what you mean about culture clash. I found the commentary far afield from the discussion, but it does remind me of this RfC.

Incidentally, Crum explained that his BLP-inspired edit war was not actually about outing Mantanmoreland (who, after all, is the subject of the ArbCom), but about a certain administrator. I therefore read that section of Byrne's blog (and links) carefully.

I still can't figure out what evidence was used to ban so many long-time accounts in the Runcorn case. It seems like a double-standard to me, but I don't mind if we're going to apply higher burdens of proof from now on. Cool Hand Luke 22:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, you might be interested in a more full story, which Byrne has recently posted and which has been redacted (and no doubt it headed for oversight removal soon, so you'd be better copy it: [4]). Deep Capture has a version of it up which is even nastier: [5]. There really are things in it that everybody here needs to know. And it's NOT higher standards of proof "from how on." It's higher standards of proof in THIS case, where so many old WP editors have reputations at stake, including Jimbo. After this, it will be back to whacking suspected SOCKS on the basis of somebody's perception of the DUCK test, as usual. And by the way, I see by your comments in WikBack (something I just discovered) that you're far more up to date, and somewhat more angry than I'd realized. Well, good. The India time zone shift for MM during the month of GW's vacation to India, plus the two references to the dinky (for India) Varkala for both editors, pretty much nails it. People have been convicted of major crimes for less. But "making a man understand a fact when his job depends on NOT understaning it" (Sinclair Lewis) is ever the problem. So, best of luck. SBHarris 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect that might be the case, but I don't want to whine about it. I hope the medicine is easier to swallow if no one is smug about it. Cool Hand Luke 15:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:GRBerry noticed that, and it's in his evidence section. I would look at that, but I'm afraid it might be a selection bias problem. Although few probably dropped off in November, some might have dropped off in April when Samiharris almost disappeared, but Mantanmoreland did not.

In other words, I suspect it's meaningful, and I'm glad GRBerry pointed it out, but it's not unique. Selecting that characteristic to compare editors involves more subjectivity than I would like. Cool Hand Luke 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

GRBerry also noted that W wrote no monthly column that month, and that his blogging declined. Maybe it would be worthwhile... Cool Hand Luke 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic dosing

I read your comment about having taken a whole bottle of homeopathic medicine and had no effect. This is not surprising. One dose of a high potency remedy is one dose, whether you take the whole bottle or a sip, and one dose is unlikely to have any effect on a healthy person, because the homeopathic remedy must be similar to the condition it is taken to treat to cause a reaction, or be repeated several times to prove it in a healthy person. Whether this effect is psychosomatic or physical, there is no danger of overdosing by taking a million doses at once of a high potency remedy -- taken at the same time, it's still one dose. —Whig (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Maybe another way to explain this: a 30C potency is created from 1/100th of a 29C dose, so just that one "sip" becomes the next full potency once it is combined with 99 parts of diluent and succussed. I hope that is helpful. —Whig (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not. I've taken sips. I've diluted homeopathics in distilled water by succussion 100 times and repeated, then taken doses. Nothing. Nothing even for homeopathics which I'd been warned would give me real problems, like arnica and others I cannot remember. If there were anything to homeopathy, water from a brook which had flowed through a forest would be incredibly dangerous, as it's full of homeopathic doses of hundreds of herbals (right-- all these potent medicines at different dilutions, are supposed to EXACTLY cancel each other out??). Water from a spring no less, as it's full of the same for minerals. And it matters not how you dilute either one-- nobody dies from relatively pure water diluted with really pure water. Or, for that matter, from reverse osmosis water, which is normal water simply purified, but leaving many smaller doses of all kinds of molecules. Unfortunately, there's just no way to make this theory make sense. SBHarris 17:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to have an argument with you, but it reliably and repeatably works for me when I have tried several remedies, and that is simply not the case for many non-homeopathic things. For instance, when pseudoephedrine was pulled from the market, I tried the new formulation of congestion remedies with phenylephrine and found it completely without effect. Homeopathic remedies are not supposed to have an effect unless it is similar to a condition you already have, and if you choose the wrong remedy, it doesn't matter if it's Arnica or what, it won't have an effect. So be it. Mezereum 30C stopped my nose from running, phenylephrine does not. Just my experience, and I could argue with you about both your methods of testing and your comparisons to natural processes which are inaccurate, but I won't bother you further. —Whig (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

SBH, had a similar discussion with Whig earlier about Confirmation Bias. He has a problem with evidence that doesn't confirm his world view, like the inconvenient fact the homeopathic remedies don't work in a majority of cases and conveniently when they do seem to have an effect it is amazingly similar to the percentages afforded by the placebo effect. He also didn't wish to answer when I posed the question "Why is it that you disregard the majority of people's experience that homeopathy doesn't work, when you wish editors to accept your particular personal experience that proves homeopathy?". There is an expression for this. Shot info (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that a majority of people have tried homeopathic medicine. I'm also aware that homeopathic medicines continue to be purchased by people, and I'm unaware of many complaints by consumers. —Whig (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting nonanswer... Shot info (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can find reliable sources that consumers don't find phenylephrine effective.[6] Please find reliable sources that consumers don't find homeopathic medicine effective. —Whig (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent that you accept other's evidence, now, when will you accept that consumers don't find homeopathy effective (ie/ like what you have been shown elsewhere...so....many....times)? Shot info (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please bring your reliable sources, and present them in the appropriate places. As for whether it works for me, it does. My consciousness is not contingent on your approval. —Whig (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review the many and various talk pages where you have ignored those reliable sources presented by others. Your consciousness is what causes your Confirmation Bias and your belief is what blinds you to the experience of others. Shot info (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your consciousness blinds you to my experience and that of hundreds of millions of people who use homeopathy. Not one reliable source has been presented that shows consumers are unsatisfied with homeopathic medicines (excluding things like Zicam and low potency Arsenicum album which contain large quantities of molecular toxin). —Whig (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, my world-view accepts your experience and the experience of others to form and accept the consensus on the subject of homeopathy. And the consensus is that "yes it works for some and the number it works for is similar to that provided by the placebo effect". So yes, I accept your experience. I also accept your experience that phenylephrine doesn't work for you and others, but I accept the experience of others (a majority) that it is effective. But like normal, you refuse to accept any other person's experience expect for those that confirm your own. This is not an acceptance of other's experience. Please refer to the various reliable sources you have been presented with in the past and ignored. You can continue to ask but this is just an amusing tactic of yours. So continue to ask, I will continue to tell you to look at the ones you have previously ignored. There are many, pick some. Then when you have finished with those, pick some more and then continue until you have finished. Shot info (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, maybe I should keep taking phenylephrine even though it doesn't actually work for me. That would be sensible. Is the idea to keep taking it until it works? —Whig (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Even better idea, maybe I should keep taking homeopathic products even though it doesn't actually work for me. That would be sensible. Is the idea to keep taking it until it works? Shot info (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But by all means, keep going on and confirming to all and sundry that you refuse to accept other's experiences unless it agrees with your own however... Shot info (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I don't think we're going to resolve this on my TALK page. I've made my position clear: I don't see how it can work biochemically, and personally it does nothing for me. I've no doubt most people are satisfied, as it seems to do nothing but take a little money for some placebo water. There are far worse things in the world. Even medical treatments may be far worse, as Hahnmann well knew! My own favorite homeopathic is called "tincture of time" 100c. It's gentle and quite effective. The real enemy that always makes any medical problem worse is anxiety (see the difference between treating animals and their owners, vs. treating people) and homeopathy is quite effective there, for those that believe in it. And so is prayer. So I recommend prayer if you're a believer. It will raise your endorphins and calm your amygdala. I just don't happen to be one. But by all means, lets be inclusionist and put homeopathy in wikipedia. But let's treat it like prayer, please. People pray in lots of situations about which we have Wikis, but it's not worth mentioning and not appropriate. SBHarris 00:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that homeopathy in high potencies (above 12C) cannot work biochemically. And with that, I'll take your leave. —Whig (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a quite silly discussion here. It is like saying that magnets don't work just because they don't work on wood or plastic. The trick to making the homeopathic "principle of similars" work is that you must have the correct medicine. The principle of similars is akin to "resonance," and in resonance, there is hypersensitivity. This is what is great (and safer) about homeopathics. If you take the wrong remedy, there is no hypersensitivity/no resonance and no effect. This doesn't mean that homeopathy doesn't work; it means that you haven't selected the correct remedy (or sometimes the correct remedy and the correct potency). DanaUllman^Talk 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are correct then this suggests several things: 1) homeopathics can't be dangerous except by omission, so it's just as well that they're OTC. We don't need to worry about people overdosing, heh. 2) If it's really true that the "right" medicine fixes things, while the wrong ones are off resonance and thus simply ignored and do NOTHING, then we have a really great possiblity: Doc Harris' All Purpose Homeopathic Remedy™! You take all 100 or 200 homeopathics commonly used, and mix them up into one elixer. Take it for anything. If it doesn't work, dilute it 1x, and repeat. Soon, you're healthy and maybe immortal. What say? SBHarris 01:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably because the various substances that are not present in the remedy will interfere with one another by unknown, unexplainable and unreproducible (yet 100% consistent) process(es). Shot info (talk) 01:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, homeopathic practioners used to have quite an argument historically among themselves whether or not remedies containing two or more actives were or weren't a bad thing. It's not exactly a done and decided deal that it doesn't matter if you mix them, as Dana Ullman presents it. And we've now in fact gotten to commercial homeopathic elixers with a dozen actives for various symptom complexes, almost in keeping with my proposal. But homeopathic infighting was a lot like religious infighting-- it never led anywhere and only made both religious views look silly (have you ever really examined why the Greek Orthodox are REALLY different from Roman Catholics-- double procession vs. the lack of it, is good for a laugh). Anyway, the homeopaths took care not to criticize each other too much in public. So these things are sold OTC. These guys treat the patient's symptoms rather than some pathology, you know. And they do it even when they haven't met the patient. Good thing they never claimed this stuff REQUIRED proofing or some other quackery like muscle-testing. SBHarris 02:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

But No true Homeopath would mix their potions together. Shot info (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sbharris, your arguments will improve once you learn something about homeopathy. For instance, we do not "treat" symptoms; we use symptoms to find the remedy. Further, whether a homeopath has or doesn't have medical training, we use whatever diagnosis the patient has been given, but then, we put more emphasis on whatever unusual or idiosyncratic symptoms the person has. And for the record, there is plenty of in-fighting in homeopathy...200 years worth...and different styles of using high and low potencies. Once you learn something about homeopathy, you may be dangerous. Until then, your lack of knowledge about this subject is simply amusing, not convincing. Still, I will AGF, and I ask you to consider avoid the strawman argument. DanaUllman^Talk 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If, as you claim above (00:24, 29 February 2008), homoeopathic remedies only have an effect if they are properly matched to the patient's symptoms and if the wrong remedy is selected "there is no hypersensitivity/no resonance and no effect", then why do 'provings' of homoeopathic remedies appear to produce symptoms in volunteers who were not previously exhibiting symptoms? Brunton (talk) 09:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Brunton, I like it when skeptics ask good questions. Thanx. Provings only seem to work on people who are relatively healthy, possibly because the sick person is too sick to respond (they are defending themselves against more signficiant infections/stresses/exposures. However, there seem to be exceptions to this common obsersation for the need to use "healthy" people for provings because some people who tend to be "allergy-type" people (aka people who are generally hypersensitive) can sometimes experience a proving easily). Provings teach us that homeopathic medicines are not "safe" in the pure sense of the word, though the symptoms that they cause dissipate and disappear progressively after the person stops taking the remedy. Because many provings are conducted with the 30th potency and because provings verify (and expand) the known toxicology of a substance, provings provide a vast and powerful body of evidence of the power of the potentized dose. When skeptics say that these potentized doses have no effect, those people who are truly knowledgeable about homeopathy laugh (because we know that these people have hardly scratched the surface in their investigations of the subject). DanaUllman^Talk 14:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think this proving of a commonly prescribed remedy failed to show a difference between remedy and placebo? [7] Brunton (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Let's break it down to really small concepts for my limited understanding. Why is it, Mr./Dr. Ullman, that no provings of any kind have had any effect on me? I have tried half a dozen suggested by various homeopaths which are supposed to have some effect on me. I have actually tried Cantharis (I don't remember the dilution, quite frankly), but it had about the same effect on me that it did in PMID 15532695, which is to say: none. If you have a suggestion, I'd be most happy to swallow it on empty stomach, and report back here.

Second, the idea that homeopathy doesn't treat symptoms but rather "uses" them to find a remedy: Isn't that sort of semantic distinction? How does it differ from treating symptoms? If it treats an underlying cause, it's one that always shows itself via symptom-complex. Which is quite remarkable, but what of it? It doesn't help you, since all you see and treat is symptoms. You look up a bunch of symptoms in a repertory and pick a remedy, which is given according to the symptoms. So? What am I missing? Is it that you just don't believe in anything that has been discovered by modern pathophysiology about why people become ill? The same disease process that causes DIFFERENT sets of symptoms in different people? No matter what syptoms they have, if you treat the underlying problem, the symptoms resolve. There are about a dozen symptoms of mountain sickness, but they all respond to oxygen (for example). Do you suggest treating them with homeopathy INSTEAD? Why not? There are a dozen early symptoms of scurvy, too, and they all respond to vitamin C, and so on. Suppose you didn't know the person had scurvy, and they came to a homeopath. What do you do, give them something for bad breath and purple blotches on the feet?

And one more thing: has it occured to you that what you term as "allergic" types are merely suggestable, anxious, somatizing types? The sort of people who hypnotize well? Which I don't? SBHarris 04:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Logic and reasoning will always be trumped by belief and magical thinking. :-( Shot info (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point about Dana'a assertion that patients who are already exhibiting symptoms are not well enough to develop 'proving symptoms': this seems to originate with the belief, stated in The Organon, that a patient who is suffering from one disease will not be susceptible to another (this is not an idea that originated with Hahnemann; it seems to have been a fairly common belief at the time). This is all very well, but homoeopathy doesn't seem to recognise the existence of specific diseases (see claims form homoeopaths elsewhere that homoeopathy 'treats the patient not the disease'). It is claimed that a patient exhibits their own unique pattern of symptoms rather than a disease state, so they appear to be saying that a patient already exhibiting a collection of symptoms is unable to develop further symptoms. This appears to be contradicted by reports of provings in which further symptoms are developed as the proving continues, and also by homoeopaths' statements that during the course of treatment new symptoms, or symptoms previously exhibited, may develop, and this shows that the treatment is working. Brunton (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There have always been some people who do not seem sensitve to a proving. In one of my previous discussions, I mentioned that the person be reasonable healthy...and we define that as mental/emotional/physical health. There may be a chance that the people who are unresponsive to provings are too sick. In my past personal interaction with hyper-skeptics of homeopathy, they have not been the most emotionally-balanced...and tend to be more than a tad mental (I am NOT saying that you are...I'm just speaking in generalizations). That said, figuring out in detail who is and isn't sensitive to provings are good questions that are worthy of further research. By the way, the Cantharis proving study that you reference above makes a special note that there WERE Cantharis-like symptoms and atypical symptoms DURING the proving that were not there at baseline. I guess you missed that one...and this is an important one. Look again. DanaUllman^Talk 06:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, I ignored it, since symptoms went up in both groups (placebo and proving groups), and thus did not differ between groups. That only means that either the raters were biased, or that some of the "symptoms" were so non specific that you expect to see an increase in them in any placebo group getting an odd drug that they expect may cause effects-- like GI complaints or headache. I don't understand the reasonably healthy explanation, since the whole point of finding the actions of various homeopathics is to prove them on the background of reasonably healthy people, and the homeopathic literature is literally FULL of reports of new proposed remedies, tested in exactly that way. As you very well know, so what are giving me this argument for? And as for the "mental" comment, my experience is that placebo responders tend to high-strung types. It was certainly that way when I exposed a local quack some years ago who demonstrated that his patients could tell the difference between chlorinated and distilled water via muscle strength testing. Nothing to do with homeopathy, but a nice study on placbos and the need for blinded studies. When we blinded the guy, he did no better than chance. The radio news team was not impressed. He explained it that his star responders were getting tired. Yeah, tired or else no now now longer able to pick up subliminals from him, now that he didn't know what he was working with. SBHarris 15:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have examined packages of them recently here in stores

It was not present on all packages, and if it was, it was extremely small unobtrustive print. The ads on television and radio here do not play up the connection. You are free to believe whatever you like however since this subject is much much much too dangerous to discuss at the moment.--Filll (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed fork

I proposed the creation of Criticism of homeopathy on Talk:Homeopathy, and it was again called a POV fork. I believe that my proposal is not a POV fork, but I'm not sure how to get out of this impasse, and would appreciate any suggestions. —Whig (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the suggestion, there seems to be entrenched opposition. —Whig (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SteinbeckStamp.JPG

Thank you for uploading Image:SteinbeckStamp.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a FUR (Free Use Rationale) standard form on your image, to make it more compliant. This will also stop bots from believing that there is no rationale. I think it's called a boiler-plate FUR. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm still not sure it will comply without some letter of permission by the US post office. These guys have been formally copyrighting their images since Jan. 1, 1979 (to what purpose I cannot imagine except to cause headaches), and this stamp is about 2 months past that, in date of issue. SBHarris 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

GLOBAL WARMING

Hello Dr. Harris,

I'm a 62 year old retired civil engineer. I am inventing a wind energy scheme to stop global warming. Here's where I am now:

  $ 0.04/kwhr....(no gov't subsidies);
  Power 24/7...wind or no wind
  Triple power output during peak demand (same wind speed)

I admire your knowledge, candor and humor. Could you review my report? Either you'll have a good laugh (happens to me a lot) or together we'll end GLOBAL WARMING.

Thanks,

Geoff Goeggel goeggel@hawaii.rr.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.97.232 (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Global wawa?? I'll be glad to read your article, Geoff but you have to provide me with a link, or how else am I to find it? And you might consider creating a webpage for yourself here. Just pick a username and sign up. Make sure it's not too controversial or advertising. user:Globalwarming might survive as a name, and I as going to add that user:Endglobalwarming probably wouldn't, but it seems to already have been taken, and is actually already being used! SBHarris 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.