|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Threads with no replies in 10 days may be automatically moved.|
And there is also This archive.
- 1 Barnstar
- 2 Mammootty
- 3 Discretionary sanctions notification - climate change
- 4 A9
- 5 Slice and dice
- 6 geckos
- 7 Gilbert Ling Association Induction Hypothesis
- 7.1 Overall Comments
- 7.2 Addressing Notability
- 7.2.1 Does the article contain reliable third-party sources?
- 7.2.2 Does the AIH meet requirements to have significant independent coverage or recognition from reliable and recognized peer reviewed publicationsor credible and authoritative books?
- 7.2.3 Credible and authoritative books
- 7.3 Reverts I disagree with
- 7.3.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630099519&oldid=630099398
- 7.3.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630104190&oldid=630102607
- 7.3.3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630098281&oldid=630098235
- 7.3.4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630098572&oldid=630098493
- 7.3.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630098611&oldid=630098572
- 7.3.6 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630098887&oldid=630098611
- 7.3.7 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630099249&oldid=630098887
- 7.3.8 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_induction_hypothesis&diff=630099398&oldid=630099249
- 8 Notice
- 9 Request for mediation rejected
- 10 Discussion at Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes
- 11 Discussion of Shobana filmography
- 12 October 2014
- 13 Opinion
- 14 Copy-pasted-formatted one of your comments, please check
- 15 Regardless of !vote thanks for taking time
- 16 Notice
- 17 Thank You
- 18 S. Truett Cathy
Dude now check the main lead. Every thing mentioned is sourced and all sources are reliable. please check before reverting. myself cleaned unwanted content.now the article looks perfect. Thanks Harirajmohanhrm talk (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC).
Discretionary sanctions notification - climate change
|Please carefully read this information:
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
You tagged several songs with WP:CSD#A9. Unless the articles are untrue, in which case you need a different tag, they are not eligible for A9 because the artist or artists have articles on Wikipedia. Please be more careful using this tag. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Gekkos of Zimbabwe DrC.Humphreys (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your invaluable Remarks on article. I have two questions 1. How you I retrieve the article Userfied by Alexf ? 2. If I were to title my article Endemic Geckos of Zimbabwe would it be more acceptable ? As vangenie says Geckos dont recognise human borders by they do recognise geography and exclusive habitats i.e. endemicity....the word endemic in embedded in the text several times DrC.Humphreys (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Slice and dice
Hey TRPoD - do you have any interest in taking your finely honed machete to clean this up? I've certainly seen worse, but it checks all the boxes: unsourced personal info, crappy sources, and ridiculous puffery (DYK she has "previously expressed a desire to win the Palme d'Or"?) I double dog dare you. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Gekkos of ZimbabweAfroedura transvaalica Dear RedPenofDoom Thank you for your comments. I have tried to improve these articles (above) as you suggest...like all of wikipedia its a work in progress....as is my ability to understand the wiki protocols and formatting language. I can see the points made about zimbabwe (that does not have a great deal of endemicity .....it does though have endemic geckos).....in my article the species are listed in red.....the articles about the gecko genera also have the same species listed in red i.e. they are stubs or starters.....i intend to develop these stubs....(two have turned blue as I added to them) ...not because I am interested in those huge genera but more because I am interested in Zimbabwe's herpetofauna....i feel sure that others will see this as a useful contribution ...the british library and wikipedia are full of 'snails of fiji' or 'birds of east anglia' types of research.... does they need editing, collating into larger topics or can they stand on their own censured. The original administrator who deleted this suggested contacting Wikiproject Amphibians and Reptiles which I have done ...... as yet they havent replied....for some guidance. Thank you for your contribution Clive DrC.Humphreys (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Gilbert Ling Association Induction Hypothesis
Within a period of 15 minutes you swing your scythe and remove 1/3rd of the article with no pre-discussion in the talk page and not justifiable comments (See below). I believe this is breaking the three revert rule. There was no discussion beforehand of these major edits contrary to WP:Edititing Policy Be_cautious_with_major_changes:_discuss
You then go on to edit other articles and coming back to the AIH article and perhaps speed read for about 5 minutes decide that the whole theory is a wingnut theory and not notable saying that in 50 years the only one who has written about this is Ling.
Notability can be expressed in the following questions and answers
Does the article contain reliable third-party sources?
Yes, the article contain 36 cites not written by Ling from reliable third-party sources. Of the 44 cites, 26 are from Ling. The criticism of Ling section is not complete but will add approx. 16 additional independent secondary source citations, so this will bring number of third party sources to approx 57% of all the cites.
However "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."
Ling has over 120 articles in pubmed and has been published in a number of peer reviewed journals such as Journal of Cellular Physiology, The Journal of General Physiology, Nature, Science, Proc Natl Acad Sci and Biophysical Journal (See full list below).
A Google Search for the term "Association Induction Hypothesis" in google books between 1980 and present returns almost 100 separate credible and authoritative books. These include the following books :
I contend that this satisfies this aspect of the notability guidelines.
List of papers submitted to Peer-Reviewed Journals
List of Papers independent of Ling submitted to peer reviewed scientific Journals
So, the contention appears to be that the Association Induction Hypothesis has not received sufficient attention from mainstream science which includes the peer-review process and this disbars it from having an entry in wiki. If this is the case then the entry on Einstein should be revised because only 1 of his 300 published papers was peer reviewed. Examples of papers that were rejected by peer reviewers and journals but later became some of the most important scientific papers of recent years include the Krebs article on the citric acid cycle, possibly the most important single article in modern biochemistry, was initially rejected by the peer review process. The work of S. A. Berson, MD, and Yalow on radioimmunoassay, which, like Krebs' studies, eventually led to a Nobel Prize, was initially rejected for publication.
Reverts I disagree with
Of the 44 cites, 26 are from Ling. The criticism of Ling section is not complete but will add approx. 16 additional independent secondary source citations, so this will bring number of secondary sources to approx 57% of all the cites
Comment: You revert the whole article (Some 62,000 bytes or 24 pages) to a redirect back to Gilbert Lings wiki page with the comment "non notable wingnut theory , in 50 years the only one who has written about this is ling, redirect to author"
This article was started by me in April 2014 and it is now Oct 2014 and represent many hours of research). I do not even know what is meant by a wingnut theory. Can you please provide evidence or cites for your opinion that this theory is not notable. Are you for example a biochemist? or scientist? What qualifies you for this opinion or what did you read to come to this conclusion? Please enlighten me as you have made no attempt to engage with me either my User talk page or the articles Talk page. If you had you would have seen a list of 18 cites from independent third-party reliable and verifiable scientists in the field. This is in addition to the 34 third party cites already in the article.
Comments: In this revision the list of published books by Ling are removed. This makes absolutely no sense, the WIKI article is about his Association Induction Hypothesis which is what all of his published books are about. I don't see the need to withhold this information. As a precedent in the Newtons Laws Of Motion page there is a section Further Reading And Works Cited where Newton's publications are listed.
Comments: In this revision the term Scientific Theory is replaced with the term ‘proposal’.
This is not a truthful and accurate word to describe Ling’s 50 years career as a professional scientist using the scientific method to test and falsify his theory. According to the Wiki entry for Scientific Theory
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).
“I studied the proton resonance emissions from cell water. Recent NMR work of Cope (2), Hazlewood et al (3), and Bratton et al (4) has provided fresh insight into the physical nature of cell water. These authors have independently concluded that the decreased NMR relaxation times observed for cell water relative to distilled water (Tables 1 and 2) are due to the existence of a highly ordered fraction of cell water in which the protons of the water molecules have correlation times substantially less than the Larmor period. The reduction of the correlation times is presumably due to the adsorption of water molecules at macromolecular interfaces, findings that are consistent with the proposal by Ling (5) that intracellular water (endosolvent) exists as multiple polarized layers adsorbed onto cell proteins....The results suggest that this technique may prove useful in the detection of malignant tumors.”
On Nov 9 1977 Dr. Damadian wrote a letter to Gilbert Ling describing the moment when the first MRI image of human body was obtained “On the morning of July 3 at 4:45 A.M….we achieved with great jubilation the world’s first MRI image of the live human body. The achievement originated in the modern concepts of salt water biophysics, on which you are the grand pioneer with your classic treatise, the association-induction hypothesis.”
I do not agree with the removal of the terms theory of the cell created by Gilbert Ling, a cell physiologist and biochemist. This gives an appropriate initial context to the article e.g. it is about a theory of the cell (there are others and a history hence the link) by someone who is a verifiably a cell physiologist and biochemist, that is a professional scientist not just some layperson. You seem intent on denying or minimizing these facts for some unknown reason, your comment “appropriate maybe for ling's page, but not here” does not fit the proposed changes
I agree with removal of the phrase AIH is a unifying theory of life that has the potential to explain all life phenomena on the basis of the properties and
Comments: Removal of the section Overview of the Theory with the comment “not a reliably published source, not a how to”.
Ling’s theory is complicated so I think a summary or overview is warranted for those who don’t want to get into more detail. This section has been approved by Gilbert Ling himself as being accurate but I cannot cite an email, so what should be done??
Comments: Removal of the section Beginning of the Theory.
This short section sets the historical stage of how in 1947 Gilbert Ling failed to find evidence for the membrane (pump) theory and thus spent his whole life finding and documenting evidence against the mainstream view. His AIH theory is diametrically opposed to the mainstream view and removing mention of this would make the article extremely biased and unbalanced. Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source
Comments: Removal of the section Evidence Against the Membrane Pump Theory.
I disagree with the section being characterized as being irrelevant or a tangential subject as described by Coatrack. The article is about Ling's AIH theory and an essential part of that theory is an attempt to disproof the prevailing membrane theory. e.g. Ling following the scientific method to disproof an hypothesis. All his books and papers have sections on the experiments he claims as evidence against membrane pump theory. Nobody in the right mind would take him seriously as a scientist or his theory seriously if he did not have experiments that attempt to 'prove the inadequacies of the prevailing membrane pump theory. This to me would be like the Spherical Earth wiki page having no mention of the Flat Earth theory. Removing this section severely blinds the reader to why indeed there is an alternative theory in the first place and its credibility is severely diminished and I don't understand the reasons for removing it.
Comments: Removal of modern day cites (2000 onwards) in particular through the work of Gerald Pollack.(2001, 2013) and Martin Chaplin on structured water and in the works of Mae Wan Ho and Vladimir Matveev. that purport to support the AIH Theory with the comment "no indication any of these are about the subject of this article" SYN.
As has been clearly stated in the article a key aspect of the AIH theory is polarized-oriented multilayer theory of cell water. All the cites listed specifically mention Ling in relation to this theory of water so this is not an attempt to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. It is directly relevant, for example in this cite are the words "In recent years three types of observations have given strong support to the PM theory".
Furthermore, Ling is often characterized as being a relic of the 50s, 60s and 70s and not having any supporters since then, indeed your final revert which is to shut down this article and redirect to Ling's page says as such as shows your ignorance on the matter.."Non notable wingnut theory, in 50 years the only one who has written about this is ling". This is factually inaccurate. Pollack dedicated his Fourth Phase of Water book to Gilbert Ling and mentions him a number of times, Mae Wan Ho has a number of chapters in her book that refer to Ling. There is strong support for Ling in the Laboratory of Cell Physiology, Institute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Sciences as evidenced by the papers by Matveev. These are the cites that you deem not about this subject whereas the opposite is true.
Comments: Removal of a cite from 1936 with the comment "publications from 36 are clearly NOT discussing a claim first articlulated in 61". Did you read the full sentence which says "Initially Ling in 1965 based his polarized multilayer (PM) theory on the earlier theories of deBoer and Zwikker (1929) and Bradley (1936)
- Notability requires that third party reliable sources have discussed the topic of the article. The article contained no evidence that third parties had discussed the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
Discussion at Talk:Asian American#Radical infobox changes
Discussion of Shobana filmography
Hi there, I was trying to add the filmography details from the existing wiki pages, but I found you have reverted with comment, unsourced. The details are from the existing wiki pages.Vaidyasr (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, you are busy for long time on the article Mahira Khan to spoil deliberately other editors works, you don't own the article. You edits fall under I don't like it, I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to get your opinion on a BLP issue. The William Lane Craig article has been bannered since June for being too technical and containing excessive material based on sources too closely associated with the subject himself; most of the new text appears to have been added in May with edits like these (1, 2, 3, 4). Do you think the banner is correct, or do you think the article is better with the material? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Copy-pasted-formatted one of your comments, please check
Hi, I excerpted stuff from a long thread to start a poll. I included a comment by you in the new thread. I made some small formatting changes, including wording in the bolded !vote. I'll be glad to cut and paste precise text you posted before if you think the original will help a neutral closer understand your intent better than the tweaks I made. Could you please take a sec to check it out, and make sure its ok? Thanks, and apologies if I overstepped. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of !vote thanks for taking time
Whatever you think of the idea to also require secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming", thanks for taking time to participate in the poll on that question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you much for the kind welcome to WP. Even though I've been around a while, it made me feel appreciated. It's humorous that I finally registered an account to stop catching flak for being an IP editor, then immediately get burned for being a new account. C'est la vie, and your courtesy is an antidote. TuxedoMonkey (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)