User talk:Doc James: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 139:

Mike.

::Ref does mention chronic pain. Stating pain is close enough I guess. There was no justification in the edit summary for the change. [[User:Doc James|'''Doc James''']] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 23:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

== Your most recent response plus.... ==

Ok, thank you for responding to my questions at Kombucha and particularly for responding with the following diff: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kombucha&diff=next&oldid=667314708]

# It appears that by your inclusion of my arguments in your reply (which only show in the diff, not in your reply on the TP) you are validating (agreeing with) my arguments despite the criticisms and/or incivility toward me by certain editors during the debate?

2. How were you able to harvest my prior comments in that same diff? I never knew we had such a feature where we could harvest prior posts in a discussion and include them in a diff without inclusion in the reply itself. Is it an admin thing?

3. Re: RCT - I was under the impression that inherent beneficial properties and the mechanisms that cause a particular action in natural products (such as the inherent properites in a coffee bean, cauliflower, fruit, etc.), or that included essential nutrients, vitamins and minerals a body needs to function properly, or that were actually created by a natural process - (grape to raisen) - did not require RCT. The grape has x properties, and when it ripens into a raisen it has x properties plus or minus (or whatever). If research uncovers beneficial properties in a natural product that are known to be beneficial, and/or discoveries other beneficial properties after it has undergone a natural change is it not a given that they have x, y, or z properties which are known to function in a positive way and play a positive role in our health? Why would it need RCT?

4. Were there RCTs that determined not all wild mushrooms are safe to eat, or that blueberries are good for you? :-)

Please don't mistake my curiosity and desire to learn new things as anything but what it is. When I do learn something it is learned well because I ask questions from different angles (the writer in me). When an editor I respect and admire responds to my questions, especially someone with authority, I trust that it's factual information until proven otherwise. Therefore when you responded to me at Proj Med, I felt confident in quoting your response. When you responded to my ping and started editing Kombucha, you turned the article in a slightly different direction by restoring some of the scientifically unsupported information I had removed. Removal of passages with inline quotes that were sourced to RS 2014 reviews, and replacing them with 15 year old reviews that do not include the most recent scientific research that discloses inherent properties of the product and/or process quite understandably confused me. What it appears you did was replace material that was supported scientifically per #3 above with older material that was unsupported and did not include recent research. How does that make sense?

One last thing I'd like to share. While it may not have been your intention, your actions appear to have emboldened certain editors who have repeatedly shown ill-will toward me. It felt like I had walked into the middle of a swarming beehive, and that isn't how it's supposed to feel when GF collaboration is involved. As an admin, shouldn't you have commented on the PAs and incivility? When left unchecked, it's the kind of behavior that elevates into hounding and harassment. Take a look at the discussion on my TP after I reverted the edits of one editor who reverted my edits, then he reverted me again. I also blanked two edit warring notices that were also unwarranted threats against me by another editor I politely reminded about edit warring first. While it appears as a simple notice, the truth of the matter is that they were unwarranted which makes them a threat, especially by an editor who simply showed up at the article, never joined in the TP discussions, and started reverting and hacking away at the article. I normally don't edit articles like Kombucha, but the behavior at such articles raises a lot of behavioral questions.

As a copy-editor/reviewer/rollbacker and most recently a volunteer at DRN, I may end up at an article about natural products or altmed, etc. I am quite capable of and prefer polite, intelligent discourse but when the discussion turns condescending toward me, or worse, uncivil as it did at Kombucha (by some of the same editors who were aggressive and/or uncivil toward me during the MfDs of my essay and also at Griffin) it requires intervention. Why are such behaviors allowed to elevate by offending editors, and the when the attacked editor puts up a defense, they are criticized and boomeranged? It's insanity. Doc, I'm weary of the unwarranted PAs and contentious labels - like being referred to as an anti-science advocate and other BS comments of ill-will designed to persuade public opinion against me. It is quite hurtful and certainly not helpful to the project. The PAs and beehive behavior are one of the reasons we are losing editors by the score. As I'm sure you are aware, we have several editors whose behavior is very disruptive and uncivil - baiters and hounders - they seem to forget there is a living breathing person on the other end of the discussion when they make hurtful comments. I hope you will be one of the administrators who can help eliminate those issues and make WP a happy place once again. [[User:Atsme|Atsme]][[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)