User talk:Bbachrac/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

November 2020A

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Feldenkrais Method; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

/* November 2020 */ Feldenkrais Method is subject to a Service Mark Feldenkrais Method®. The current Wikipedia entry has many deficiencies which should be corrected. There are many assertions that do not conform to guild certified practice. I will add citations for the changes I am proposing. I am not a member of the guild but have benefitted personally from being a student.

Please read Wikipedia's policy on the use of "®":

Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context.

use: LittleBigPlanet, Realtor

avoid: LittleBigPlanet™, REALTOR®

Source: WP:®.

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020A

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Jhawkinson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I was asking for clarification from @Jhawkinson which I did not consider my question nor was it meant to be an attack. I am puzzled by web search results on "ALEXBRN Wikipedia" which again is seeking clarification. Bbachrac (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit. Writing "He seems to troll a lot of entries along with ALEXBRN."[1] is not "asking for clarification". Calling someone a troll is a personal attack. Don't do it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

A search for "ALEXBRN Wikipedia" will reveal (among other things) that there are some right mischievous fuckers out there on the big bad web. I'd advise extreme caution in interpreting what you think you see, unless fully clued up on how this stuff works. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not mean to use the term troll as a personal attack, so I apologize if it was taken that way. Web search on certain Wikipedia ID's invoke that characterization. I was using the term to mean editors that closely follow activity. Bbachrac (talk)

If your reading and writing comprehension is so deficient, you're going to have a hard time here: WP:CIR. In general, I am concerned that now we have had a parade of Feldenkrais shills trying to do opposition research on editors in good standing, to try clear them out of the way of spinning to improve the Feldenkrais brand. It's a disgrace. Alexbrn (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in complementary and alternative medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn I appreciate learning from you about Wikipedia. My understanding is that you are not an administrator. I appreciate you are passionate about many articles and I look forward to consulting with you going forward as well as proposed editing. In order to minimize thrashing, I am hoping to discuss proposal in a Sandbox Talk page to understand preliminary consensus. If there is a better way, please suggest. Thank you Bbachrac (talk)

No, I am not an administrator. My advice was not to edit in area where you have a WP:COI, and that remains my advice. Alexbrn (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest with respect the Feldenkrais Method. I am a 78 year old retired physicist who is well informed on the relevant subjects. Again, thank you for your concerns. Bbachrac (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Serious question: As a retired physicist you are no doubt familiar with the difference between unproven and unfalsifiable theories. Please read Talk:Feldenkrais Method#Feldenkrais Method claimed to treat Autism and do the same experiment I did:

"You can prove anything you want by coldly logical reason---if you pick the proper postulates." ― Isaac Asimov

The Feldenkrais Method is claimed to be an effective treatment for Autism.Moving Beyond Limits: Children with AutismHow the Feldenkrais Method can Benefit Children with Autism. It is also claimed that the Feldenkrais Method will make you a better musician,[2] a better actor,[3] is an effective treatment for children with Down Syndrome, [4] Cerebral Palsy,[5] Muscular dystrophy,[6] ADHD,[7] Stroke,[8] Congenital hip dysplasia,[9] Microcephaly,[10] Hydrocephaly, Spina Bifida, Traumatic birth injury, Brachial plexus injury, Hypoxic brain damage, Autism spectrum disorders, Torticollis, Undiagnosed developmental delays, Multiple disabilities, Sensory Processing Difficulties, Hypotonia causing global developmental delay, and Dystonia.[11] It can even be an effective treatment for a poodle that had a stroke![12]

In fact, you can google "Feldenkrais [any disease]" and find claims that Feldenkrais is an effective treatment for that condition. "Feldenkrais alzheimer's"? Individuals With Dementia Learn New Habits and Empowered Through the Feldenkrais method. "Feldenkrais erectile disfunction"? Enhancing Sexuality Through the Feldenkrais Method. "Feldenkrais heart failure"? Healing the Heart: the Feldenkrais Part "Feldenkrais anger"? Anger and the Feldenkrais Method .

I encourage you to repeat my experiment with a different list of disorders. What are the odds that rthe Feldenkrais Method is a universal treatment for any disorder and yet the New England Jounal of Medice for some reason keeps recommending other kinds of treatment? Why haven't we fired all of the doctors, closed down all the drug manufacturers, and replaced them with Feldenkrais?

As a physicist, I am sure that you are aware of the existence of theories that can explain any experimental results and thus explain nothing. The classic example is "the earth was created 10,000 years ago." "What about fossils?" "The devil created those to foll us into believing that the earth is billions of years old" "What about the stars that are millions of light years away?" "No. All the stars are actually within one light year". "(provides convincing proof that the stars are farther away than that)" "Just as god created Adam with a belly button, he created the light in transit as if the stars were very old." ...and so on. Try to disprove the argument that the entire universe was created one hour ago and that you sere created with false memories and false physical evidence of being a 78 year old retired physicist instead of a newborn, You can't, because it is unfalsifiable. Those baby pictures of yourself as an infant? Created an hour ago. That scar? Created an hour ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon You might want to review the subject of Case Teaching. Some examples: Teaching With Cases https://case.hks.harvard.edu/teaching-with-cases/ ; https://www.bu.edu/ctl/teaching-resources/using-case-studies-to-teach/ ; https://ctl.columbia.edu/resources-and-technology/resources/case-method/ or https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Case_method Bbachrac (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Your point being? Are you denying that Feldenkrais is claimed to be a universal cure or are you claiming that Feldenkrais is indeed a universal cure? Can you name any condition that Feldenkrais isn't an effective treatment for? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon. Clearly the process of your contributing to re-writing the article will clarify what the “Feldenkrais Method” is and isn’t. Have you studied the field of “pain management” which seeks to manage back issues without surgery. As you might know, back surgery for various situations has about a 50% rate of alleviating debilitating conditions. Rehabilitation following such surgery usually takes ~ 2 years. 50.254.129.219 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC) 50.254.129.219 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

We already have a page on that: Failed back syndrome Also see Rehabilitation in spinal cord injury. None of that has any relation to the Feldenkrais Method, which is pseudoscientific quackery with no known benefits. Also, your numbers are wrong. It is roughly 85%, not 50%. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon you often couch your comments as "we". Are you part of an organized cohort of editors. If so, have you disclosed the group Bbachrac (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You actually have a problem with my using "we already have a page on that" for "Wikipedia already has a page on that"? Let me guess; if I had written "I already have a page on that" you would complain about me claiming to be all of Wikipedia. You have failed to answer my questions, so I am not going to answer any more of yours. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Back Surgery is a much broader class than spinal cord injuries. If you have had to consult with an orthopedic surgeon, you would know that they now typically share practice with doctors specializing in pain management and will typically avoid surgery if the problem can be managed without it. MRI and CAT Scan imaging often cannot pin point the sources of nerve impingement and they will use a series of cortisone injection to better determine localization. You might look at https://www.orthobethesda.com/blog/spine-surgery-when-it-works-and-when-it-doesnt/amp/ which also cites 50% in general. Bbachrac (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Again I ask, Are you denying that Feldenkrais is claimed to be a universal cure or are you claiming that Feldenkrais is indeed a universal cure? Can you name any condition that Feldenkrais isn't an effective treatment for? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5