You may wish to comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 09:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism (2nd nomination). stmrlbs|talk 04:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also found the chiroaccess write-up by Rosner to be pretty informative, and it detailed my hunches about the issues with Ernst's 2001-2010 studies. But those critiques were dismissed out of hand at Chiropractic as a self-published source. Are there grounds for including or considering them, aside from that they seem to be right? Ocaasi (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, do you have a link for the bone and joint task force study you mentioned at project medicine? Ocaasi (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links were posted inline. The Bone & Join Decade Task Force published a lot of studies, but I linked a couple of them there, one of which is a secondary study. DigitalC (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may also be interested in Bronfort et al.'s UK evidence report in Chiropractic & Osteopathy (2010). DigitalC (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are ready to spend some time on it to move the issue towards some sort of finality, please email me and we'll go from there. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be honest in stating that I don't know how much time I am willing to commit to this, as I feel that no matter what, it will not get results. However, I will email you if you provide me your email address, or we can discuss here. DigitalC (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DigitalC, I have noted that you frequent the "chiropractic" page. As such, I wanted to let you know that I have posted some proposed edits on the respective talk page for other editors to comment on. I hope to systematically go through the entire evidence section over time, as well as other sections that may benefit from attention, but have noticed by reading the talk page that it is a "rough" neighborhood :) Thus, I hope to seek input before I make any changes. Any comments, critisisms, or advice is apppreciated. Best regards, Puhlaa (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Puhlaa, and welcome to wikipedia. My best pieces of advice for editing at chiropractic are to take things slow, and don't get too invested in it - that way you don't get upset if things don't go your way. Other than that, knowing core policies is important (Wp:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV) also, for the evidence section, there has been a consensus on the page to stick to secondary sources for scientific evidence (safety, efficacy, etc.) - so recent reviews, guidelines, literature syntheses, etc are fair game, but we try to stay away from primary studies. For more on that, see WP:MEDRS. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. DigitalC (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the response and the advice! I have noted that only secondary sources are going to be acceptable, and I have maintained this standard in my edits so far, and will continue to do so. Best regards Puhlaa (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey DigitalC. There is a discussion at Chiropractic that you may want to weigh in on, the discussion is regarding labelling the chiropractic category broadly as pseudoscience. Also, I have been drafting a proposed change to the chiropractic lead at User:Puhlaa/notes to make it more balanced and representative of the body of the article, while still conforming to MEDRS, FRINGE, WEIGHT, NPOV and V. Please feel free to checkk it out, comment, etc.Puhlaa (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Description & Distribution please. DigitalC (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reported you here on AN/I for tag-team editing with Bearcat and CJCurrie a la your recent edits on Thomas Mulcair and Libby Davies. Feel free to disprove the charges. Sleetman (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, thank you for supporting the move for the title Baie-Comeau. Now I am going to propose another requested move. The new requested move is about the title Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec will rename Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. You are welcome for comments at the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu's talk page for you to support the new title. Go to the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu's talk page. Talk:Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec#Requested move I will see you at the talk page. Steam5 (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey DigitalC, Not sure if you noticed, but with about 6 major edits in the last 2 hours, QG has systematically edited-out pretty much every productive and progressive change that has been made to the chiropractic article over the last 6 months (since I started editing there). I do not know how best to deal with this? Perhaps most bothersome, we had concensus earlier [1] to include the systematic review by Bronfort in Chiropractic and Osteopathy, this has now been removed. Do you have any advice on how to proceed? Puhlaa (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the link to the consensus. I posted about Bronfort earlier on WProject Medicine, since QG is now asserting that it fails MEDRS. I have reinstated one instance of his removal, but don't have the time right now to go through most of his edits. The best thing to do is revert, and discuss on the talk page. Perhaps notifying a moderator (User:Shell Kinney perhaps?) might also be prudent. There has also been consensus on the article to discuss major changes to the article before implementing them, to prevent edit wars. DigitalC (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DigitalC, have you seen the discussion here [2]. Do you like the version that RexxS recommended in February at [3]? I believe that this is almost identical to what the article read before QG started making his series of controversial edits on July 7. Can we try to get consensus for this version again? I believe we had concensus in February, and it seems RexxS just didnt realize that before QGs edits there was a version that had consensus (including his according to his link). Puhlaa (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See [4].

Personally, I prefer the version that RexxS recommended at [5]. I have proposed this at [6].Puhlaa (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please copy any relevant evidence from your sandbox into the AE complaint itself. There are also two red links in the sandbox; perhaps they need to be fixed. If you are aware of any past Arbcom cases involving QuackGuru, it would be helpful if you can include the links. Also a link to QG's last topic ban would be useful. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please feel free to copy any of this into the complaint. Jojalozzo 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admins are often asked to review things at AE where a proponent of one side of the debate is proposing sanctions against someone from the other side. QuackGuru's style of editing has escaped major censure for a number of years, though he's been blocked occasionally and he's been topic banned from chiropractic at least once. We need to see if there is something unusual about the current situation that marks it as more than a routine content dispute. You've mentioned Vertebral artery dissection and Pseudoscience. I don't perceive that either side has yet opened an RfC about the issues under dispute. If you could show that QuackGuru was reverting against a well-established consensus in either case, you'd have more of an argument. (An RfC is one way to show where consensus lies). The admins at AE could close this case by requiring RfC, if they perceive that nobody has yet taken this step. If you have other ideas for closing these two disputes (other than simply removing QuackGuru from the situation) please propose them at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could use the following links to establish consensus in the complaint if they would help (of course using your own interpretations not mine) :

• RfC on the talk page here which included a referendum [in which only QG supported the use of the Matute source for public health risks of pseudoscience]
• "Poll for consensus on use of Matute et al. source" [in which the only support was by QG and some drop-by editors who did not stay to defend or explain]
• QG's request for comment on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard [in which the proposed use of the source received minimal/no support once people read the paper]

Jojalozzo 23:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"We need to see if there is something unusual about the current situation that marks it as more than a routine content dispute." The issue is that this ISN'T a content dispute. In all three locations it is a conduct issue - tendentious editing, failing to recognize consensus (or lack of consensus), and WP:IDHT over & over. I have tried to clarify that at A/E. At VAD there was an admin involved, if you don't accept my evidence - but please do read through the second to last ANI thread. DigitalC (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opening a new RfC at this point would be too late, as the edits have already been made against consensus. Especially at VAD, the consensus is clear on the article talk page - and RfC was never necessary as only QG supported the changes. DigitalC (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've now posted at AE, I'd like to see an admin closure of the three content debates to see if one or more of them has a consensus. If it's as simple as you suggest, an admin can close them all in five minutes. I agree that the ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive654#User:QuackGuru is the one most relevant for the current AE request. You'll notice the community didn't reach a conclusion, though. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, not sure if this is any use, but.... If you need an additional diff, here is one illustrating one reason why we dont make much progress with some articles (in that good editors stay away) [7].Puhlaa (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I explained there is is mass OR in the article and the Ernst 2007 is not about specifically about vertebral artery dissection. I requested V but no editor was able to provide V and explain why a not about VAD is being used out of context. See Talk:Vertebral_artery_dissection#Mass_original_research. Rather than restoring the OR it would be helpful if you tried to improve the article. For example, there is other sources that are more specific to the vertebral artery dissection article and neutrally written text can be written in accordance with core Wikipedia policy. Don't you prefer the OR removed from the article.

• Ernst E (2010). "Vascular accidents after neck manipulation: cause or coincidence?". Int J Clin Pract. 64 (6): 673–7. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02237.x. PMID 20518945.

Do you think using the "Vascular accidents after neck manipulation: cause or coincidence?" source will help improve the article (and resolve ther dispute) rather than using the Ernst 2007 source? QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not discuss content issues on my talk page. This type of discussion should be taking place on the appropriate article talk page (where I have already made my views clear on this issue). DigitalC (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not see where you made your views clear for using this particular source (PMID 20518945). It seems like you are avoiding on explaining the reasons for your edit on the talk page and did not explain how a source about adverse effects in general is related to the article when there are better sources available. QuackGuru (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not discuss content issues on my talk page. This type of discussion should be taking place on the appropriate article talk page. DigitalC (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source was discussed on the talk page but I could not find your specific response to using this source. I thought this source could resolve this dispute and editors can move on. I want to know your opinion on using this source. I suggest you could comment on the talk page whether this source is appropriate (PMID 20518945). QuackGuru (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the appropriate venue for content issues. Please do not discuss content issues on my talk page. This type of discussion should be taking place on the appropriate article talk page (where there is a section regarding this source, and where I have asked you to propose wording based on the source). DigitalC (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Let us try to change a something:

13 instances of errors by homoioteleuton in Apocalypse — is it enough? or:

13 instances of errors by homoioteleuton (repetition of endings in words) in Apocalypse

You were right with hiatus. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about, "In Apocalypse, there were 13 instances of errors by homoioteleuton,..."? DigitalC (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope it isnt out-of-bounds, but I modified your quote of QGs version ever so slightly so that it matched what his version said. That is, he had "or definite" at the end of the sentence. "Proponents claim that, the association between spinal manipulation therapy and vertebral artery dissection is not proven. However, the causality between chiropractic spinal manipulation and neck manipulation is probable or definite."

Thanks for that, copy/paste problem apparently. DigitalC (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see the original discussion you referred to in the check-in note (I'll poke about a bit), but I would like to change the article on Daniel David Palmer back to Port Perry. See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_David_Palmer

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK I did find the original discussion (why has it all been removed?) but neither of the references work. Do you have a new link for the "myth" article? That seems like the best place to start. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion hasn't been removed, merely archived. Here is a new link to the article by Chiropractic Historian Joseph Keating, [8].

DigitalC (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even more interesting, I just looked at the plaque in Port Perry, and it does not state he was born there. Simply "raised" Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I have no idea that my weekend shopping trips to Port Perry would result in this, but…. I have re-written the LEAD. The LEAD should contain a summary of the important points in the body. Most importantly, if it's in the LEAD it has to be in the body, and the mention there should generally be longer than the mention in the LEAD. Palmer meeting Still wasn't even mentioned in the body at all, which I have corrected to the degree I could. I believe this topic needs to be greatly expanded in the body. I really don't know anything about these topics, but the development of one from the other seems clear, and failing to mention this connection would be similar to talking about the development of evolution without mentioning Lyell. I have added a single explanatory statement about osteopathy in the LEAD, but I am not convinced it should remain. I added it because it sets the stage for his spinal manipulation shortly thereafter, and without this its not entirely clear why this is important. I could be convinced that the entire section should be in the body only, but I'll leave that for others to decide. In any event, the major mention in the LEAD and nowhere else was a problem. I have changed several refs. Practically everything I found about the birthplace controversy ended up tracing itself back to a single article by Paul Arculus. I've talked to Paul on several occasions (he wrote about the PW&PPR, which is what started me on the path to this page) and consider him to be a veritable font of knowledge on the area. Other references, notably Keating, appear to be based entirely on Arculus' article. Keating also made several "extrapolations" of the work that are entirely misleading. I believe everyone is best served by reading the original, which is both accurate and detailed. I have left in the pointer to the wag source, which I believe is otherwise unreliable, but Arculus doesn't mention Palmer's mother's maiden name! The body still requires expansion! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DigitalC. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christine_Kuo#Christine_Kuo.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have an opinion on this matter at Chiropractic?: [[9]]

Dig, long time, but I have a question: can you figure out why the photo of Mike Reed (Chiro) was removed? I uploaded that photo, and I suppose based on the past hx, that alone could have been enough reason for some, but I took that photo myself (it was a piece of another group shot) and I photoshopped to crop the image, so it was my work to release and I thought I released it properly. Any comments? ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 05:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya Doc, good to see you again. DigitalC doesn't appear to be too active these days, so I'll answer this one. Deleted per WP:CSD#F11, my guess is either 1. You didn't enter the correct permission, or 2. Somebody didn't believe the copyright licence given, and tagged it as inappropriate. My suggestion as a first step is to request undeletion by the deleting admin MBisanz (talk · contribs).--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Research status update on manual and manipulative therapy. I saw in the history diffs and still occasionally comment at Chiropractic. Your feedback would be much appreciated here [10]. Regards, DVMt (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DigitalC! You participated in an RFC/U concerning User:QuackGuru in 2011. There is a new RFC/U on for the same user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2, and your input would be welcome. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, DigitalC. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]