I really like what you've done with the page. It suffered severely from a slanted POV, and I think you've taken great steps to correct it. I read through the page, and I think it does a much better job at simply stating the facts. I found many of the claims on that page was based on either questionable evidence, or twisting the claims from various articles. I'll look into it more carefully in the future, but this appears to be a great step in the right direction for this article.

Djma, I thought the documentary would be a good enough citation. Seeing as 80% of his info based upon the UFC television show which obviously cannot be linked or upload just like the documentary, but that does not stop the information from being there. Anyone who watches the UFC episodes he stars in would see the truth just like the documentary.

Also, understandingly this is a controversial statement but wouldn't you say that "most of his 13 siblings having been incarcerated at one time or another." to be quite controversial as well? Why wouldn't you remove that? Actually why wouldn’t you remove anything cited from the documentary if the documentary hold no weight?

I don't know how much more evidence you require if it is stated in the documentary. Watch the documentary if you don't believe just like you can watch UFC if you don't believe the out come between him and Royce.

I think you're being biased towards the editing of this article.

Here's the deal, any allegation of a criminal charge is serious and can legally constitute libel if unfounded. (Yes, wiki has been sued before.) My internet search on Harold Howard brings up no references towards this allegation for molestation, or the child porn charge that someone else put up. A documentary is a good start, but still doesn't fit WP:CITE standards. If you can find a printed interview, internet is fine, I'd have no problem putting this back up. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have adopted the Vitamin C article. Would you be interested in taking a look at (and improving/updating) the Vitamin C section in the common cold article? Regards. --G716 05:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just completed a preliminary clean-up. Will continue to appraise. Thanks! Djma12 ^(talk) 12:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in related articles and projects seem appropriate. (I found out about the AfD's because I watch orthomolecular medicine, even though I find very little truth in the article.) I don't see it as a WP:CANVASS violation. (You know which AfD's I'm referring to....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I quickly recanted. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For adding multiple citations to statements within Vitamin C in a record-setting 8 minutes after the facts were challenged. Antelan talk 15:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP:TORIG It is nice to have someone who may target an squamous bandit, make an osotogari and then seat calmly to play an Opus . Would you give a look at the Intensive Care Unit article and see how they may include a bit of since when are in use, where existed the first ones and more origins? Also Piano seems to have quitew a lack of historical references. Thank you Daoken 12:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will do once I get the opportunity. (My life for the next 2 weeks or so will be quite busy.) Djma12 ^(talk) 23:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject True Origins WP:TORIG is now WikiProject Timeline Tracer WP:TIMETRACE also WP:TIMET. This follows many opinions that the previous name of the project could confuse or provide negative feelings in some users. Daoken 02:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just a friendly reminder that adding [[Category:WikiProject Timeline Tracer participants]] to the end of your user page will add you to the category of WikiProject Timeline Tracer (_{Ex True Origins)} participants without showing up any box in the page. Of course you can use the project's participant userbox in your page if you prefer to or neither of them and stay just in the list not in the category. Daoken 07:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Timeline Tracer has been greatly enhanced with Guidelines and Strategy as well as many alternatives which will make your editions more easy to target, easier to tag or comment and much more. Please go to WP:TIMETRACE, give a look in the new tools and get busy helping articles. Remember that this WikiProject is helping the backbone (beyond content) of all articles , Reliable Sources and Verification. Thank you for participating Daoken 11:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles were merged into Disputed origins of Asian martial arts. Merge tags were first slapped on both articles back in March[1][2] and again in June.[3][4]

If you want to dredge Freedom skies' edits to see if the dreck hides any diamonds, go ahead. JFD 02:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll remember, I am hardly a supporter of Freedom skies' edits. Heck, I was the one who slapped on the original merge tag. However, the article in its current form makes no sense. It's a counter-argument to an article that has been completely replaced. I'm sure we can work together to make this a real merge rather than a whole scale replace. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the history of this POV fork was ever explained to you in full, so here goes:

What the admin Bwithh once called a "lengthy biased opinionated rant" was first added to Wikipedia in June 2005 on the Kalarippayattu page, and re-added to Wikipedia multiple times subsequently.[5][6][7][8][9]

Verifying the statements of that rant against reliable sources produced this in July 2005.

It was Kjrajesh who split that section off in September 2005 into a separate article which he entitled Disputed history of Kalarippayattu.

Because the scope of the article was no longer exclusively restricted to kalarippayattu, I eventually moved the page to "Indian origins of East Asian martial arts?" (with the question mark) in September 2006. Bwithh subsequently changed the name to "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts" that same month.

It was Freedom skies who created the POV fork by starting Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts in November 2006.

It was never my intention to start a separate article.

The material originally belonged to the Kalarippayattu article and was split off into its own article by another editor.

Freedom skies has all but left Wikipedia, nor has anyone tried to re-add that "lengthy biased opinionated rant" to Wikipedia recently so I would actually prefer deletion of the article and its redirects.

JFD 03:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with the "Foreign influence" article:

1. Its content is little more than one of several Hindu nationalist coatracks Freedom skies tried to shoehorn into Wikipedia. If there was Greek influence via Indian martial arts, shouldn't there be a Foreign influence on Indian martial arts article too? Or for that matter, if a Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts article is justified, then why not Foreign influence on Korean martial arts or Foreign influence on Japanese martial arts articles?
2. Its sources are either mostly crap, don't support the statements for which Freedom skies cited them, or both.

JFD 23:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. JFD 02:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will help in that one, just let me know where is the latest draft and I will give a look . I think that TainanHao can be of help also, he is not fast but his knowledge is gold. Jenny^Len 15:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you give me a hand with historical refs at Electrical devices in alternative medicine, it is an article that needs redoing, I am helping but have no much references for it, I just changed totally the introduction, it was before a non neutral thing.Jenny^Len☤ 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Djma12 ^(talk) 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yap, the article was before something like "all these stuff is fraud and they cheat people with it". It was called Electrical Quakery and I moved it today to this new title. I am not sure the article deserves a place, but perhaps it can be turned into some kind of good reference about how electricity can be claimed as therapeutical in alternative medicine and can be usefull for separating what is used in medicine and what is used in alternative medicine. But is a poutpurri now, do you think it pays to save it (someone early or later will talk about those devices in WP) or to let it be absorbed as a section in electrotherapy, perhaps a sections of "not to be confused with..." ? Jenny^Len☤ 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I took away Abrahams, Emeter and other references to energy medicine devices which were incorrectly there as it is about electrical charge devices. It became a stub, I think better to be absorbed, Do we need anyone's permission? Jenny^Len☤ 17:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest Jenny^Len☤ 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the process now. Please feel free to contribute towards the discussion. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that reference - I was trying to find one, but hadn't come across it. I don't really have a problem with including it - I just didn't like it being unsourced and featured prominently toward the top of the list, when it's a speculative association without a definite causal relationship. Anyhow, it's interesting to speculate - heavy drinkers and smokers tend to have much poorer dentition and more periodontal disease, and smoking and (to a lesser extent) heavy alcohol use are risk factors for pancreatic cancer... but I'm sure the studies tried to control for those things. Guess I should start flossing. MastCell ^Talk 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wonder if you could, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, could you please place inline {{Timefact}} calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display ^{[chronology citation needed]}. If you find an article with too many inline calls to place or totally lacking needed history of the subject, you can instead place {{histrefm}} at the footnotes of the article's main page, just before Categories. If you could add this to your routines, it will most certainly help WP:TIMETRACE. Thank you for your help. Daoken 06:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It seems that the article is not about the disputed origins of martial arts but about the disputed Indian origins of martial arts. There is nothing more than about India's influence. What do you think about moving the article to "India's martial arts influence abroad" or something like that ? If someone wants to also approach the theme of diverse influences, it can be created another article called i.e. "Oriental Martial Arts, theories of origins" Jenny^Len☤ 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your opinion. Will you move it to AfD? Jenny^Len☤ 19:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, I moved the article to Martial arts of East Asia (origins), I gave it some brushing for NPOV and added large parts of your previous version. Lets give it a last fair chance. If you have time, please give it a clean up. However if you prefer now or later to AfD it, that will be fine with me. Jenny^Len☤ 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your note on my talk page. I appreciate that even though we didn't agree on the issues of the article, you debated in a friendly way and didn't take things personally. If I was harsh in any of my replies, I apologize, it wasn't intentional. I was getting frustrated with the many confusing POV biased comments on both sides of that debate, especially with all the sockpuppets or whatever they were - they made it hard to keep track of who I was replying to in each thread.

Thanks again for your comment, and best wishes for pleasant editing... --Parsifal _Hello 07:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great edits, thank you for contributing! —Parhamr 17:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected. Hope you can help…

JFW | T@lk 11:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a merger as you suggested. It seems on the pneumonia and community-acquired pneumonia pages, there is information about Mycoplasma pneumoniae being an atypical bacteria that is a common cause, but no mention on any of the pneumonia pages of its relation to walking pneumonia. Is walking pneumonia specific to mycoplasma pneumoniae or atypical bacterias in general? Is there anything else that significantly differentiates walking pneumonia from community-acquired pneumonia?

Thanks! --76.214.197.61 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention - here's the merger discussion --76.214.197.61 17:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of being the bad guy on the Nero article. You're making broad quick changes that should be discussed first. Discuss first, then change. You keep changing and want discussion afterwards. I've worked on it for a year and have a lot of knowledge on the issue. Each line can cause pages of dicussion, so please stop with the huge changes. I'm open to changes, but only after we discuss things and come to consensus first. Broad changes, POV and reverting are so frustrating that it makes me not want to bother with you, so please stop. Log every change, discuss every change. You haven't been and you know it.Hoshidoshi (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to abuse the policy of Wikipedia in order to push a POV. Obviously, if someone puts in something bad and there is a corrective revert, the correcter is going to hit 3 reverts before the original poster. What we are trying to do is make a better article, not push our view. Go back to the discussion section, please.Hoshidoshi (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly added a text unsupported by the sources that you provided to the lead of Fibromyalgia. Please note that you are close to violating WP:3RR. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am implementing RFC Consensus and have provided four separate sources for my statement.
2. You have provided absolutely no citation for your statement.
3. 3RR? I have done absolutely no reverting. Check the history logs of the article.

Djma12 ^(talk) 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no RFC concensus for your text. There is some support to provide the text that was quoted from one source, although no concensus, but your text is completely different. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I count four editors who supported the original edit. Some suggested that the wording should be edited for readability, but that was the extent of their critique. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the original edit. For the original edit, the count seems 3:2 with one of the for-votes not engaging in the discussion, and another confessing that he knows little of this topic, and where you forgot to mention that the reference is already in the text. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported a 3RR violation here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the 3RR policy before you waste an admin's time. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the 3RR notification filed here. Please note that this is not an endorsement of your position or your actions on the article, simply an acknowledgment that you reverted fewer than four times within a single 24-hour period. However, 3 reverts are not a right, and edit-warring in itself is not allowable. In addition, votestacking is generally frowned upon and may be considered disruptive.

I encourage all involved to find a way to resolve this dispute without edit warring. - Revolving Bugbear 18:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I informed the entire WikiProject Medicine community, so am unclear why this is considered vote stacking. Djma12 ^(talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notification in questions is this one, not in relation to the RfC but in relation to the subsequent revert war. While it may not have been your intention, notifying another editor after your third revert may be seen as gaming the 3RR. I do not consider this particular action disruptive enough to warrant a block, but would urge you to use discretion in the future. - Revolving Bugbear 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In terms of proctocal, however, what is the best strategy to deal with an editor who does not provide citation, and who does not accept either further citation or RFC consensus? Djma12 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest further steps in the dispute resolution process such as informal or formal mediation. During the process, try to remember that the other user probably feels as secure in his position as you do in yours. Entrenching in a revert war can only do harm -- avenues of dispute resolution are your greatest choice. And remember to stick to policy and wikiquette no matter how other users are acting.

Best of luck in a peaceful resolution. - Revolving Bugbear 20:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]