User talk:JWSchmidt

Liberation. When we can see the world in more than one way. Duckrabbit

Newer talk is at the bottom of this page.

---

Older Talk

User:JWSchmidt/Talk archive - and barnstars

More Talk in 2009

File:ERbeta.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ERbeta.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

File:PCRpublication.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:PCRpublication.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- ~~~~

Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Those were the days! --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

PCDH19 mutations that cause epilepsy

Yeah, that article you linked to should probably be included on the GEFS+ page. I haven't read it particularly closely, did they surmise how mutations in PCDH19 might lead to epilepsy? I'm not particularly familiar with that family of proteins. --Dpryan (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Gene Theory

You wrote to me: "I think the reason we seldom hear "gene theory" these days is that everyone assumes it is just a fact that genes are the basis of inheritance in living organisms. There was a time in the past when there were debates about "gene theory", for example see this: The Embryological Origins of the Gene Theory."

JW, I have read this through this essay because it is basically the ONLY reputable reference to this idea on the web. Scott Gilbert is using the phrase informally and whatever it may have meant 100 years ago, it was never adopted as a formal theory in the way that the cell theory, evolution, and gravity have been. Gilbert does not mean for the word "theory" to be taken in that sense.

The problem with introducing a novel theory and calling it "gene theory" is two-fold. First of all, it is not a part of the lexicon of biology. Second, because it has no formal roots, anyone can define it anyway they like, which is what I am seeing here and elsewhere. But as far as I can tell, the root of the problem is here on this page. People are picking up the idea from this Wikipedia entry that there is a formal scientific theory called "gene theory" and as far as I can tell, there is not and has never been. This thing needs to be eradicated before ever more students and teachers are confused. Eperotao (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your note on my talk page. Cheers. Eperotao (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful note. I will give Biology, some attention. "In this age of specialization there does not seem to be many people who are willing to take on the task of caring for pages that cover such a broad subject." I happen to be a specialist in general biology, if that makes any sense. I'll see what I can do.

Regarding Gene Theory, I have looked at several modern biology textbooks, including the two top selling textbooks for college biology majors in the United States--Campbell (1200 pages) and Purves (1200 pages)--plus Starr & Taggart, Tobin & Dusheck, Mader, Postelthwaite, and Hoagland--and no "gene theory" anywhere. Also just to be even more sure, I checked two college genetics textbooks and a four-volume encyclopedia of genetics. Nothing.

Cheers, Eperotao (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nootheridavailable

this diff. At the time it was about where the conversation ended. Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For more information on this editor, I'd suggest reviewing the deleted revisions at User talk:Ramaanand, particularly this one. I felt that the editor in question had been given too quick a block and offered to guide his contributions. He proceeded to repeatedly spam, promote homeopathy, lie about sockpuppeting whilst slinging bad-faith accusations...generally disrupting the slow progress at one of our more difficult articles. This person has been a general source of frustration for over a year now. — Scientizzle 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've personally avoided the homeopathy article for a while (too easy to burn out there, and I've greater time concerns in RL), but have tried to keep tabs. While Dr. J's recent incarnation was closer to behaviorally acceptable, it was pretty much the same deal as before: obvious lies and general disruption fed by an us-vs.-them mentality (compounded by some clumsy general disruption). My experience and instinct is that this editor will likely never be able to extract himself enough from the topic to work within NPOV, UNDUE, etc. He's got a clear vested interest and doesn't buy into things like WP:MEDRS or WP:FRINGE. Comments here and elsewhere make it clear that his view is that nobody can criticize homeopathy without trying it, and I've never seen an acknowledgement on his part that there are legitimate scientific criticisms. (even similarly-frustrating D. Ullman will grant that concession!) It's a pity, really, because knowledgable homeopaths can and do provide useful information regarding homeopathic practices and views that can really strengthen the article, but he can't seem (or isn't willing) to grasp the collaborative side of things. I would be honestly surpised if this is the last sock of Dr. J that shows up 'round here. — Scientizzle 17:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your idea could work...it's certainly more than generous. He might be willing to agree to it--I honestly don't know. If you've got the patience for it, give it a shot. — Scientizzle 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems likely that he's at work with another IP sock today, for what it's worth... — Scientizzle 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An apology

Dear JW, I think I owe you an apology and an explanation for my comments to you on various pages. If I at times seemed irritated, well....I was. For that I apologize. I really think your basic concern (if I understand you correctly), about providing warnings before blocking, is generally a good thing. Since I lived through the whole thing and it really irritated me at the time, I took an interest in the case and in general regarding fighting sockpuppetry and vandalism. (If I had no special interests here, I'd probably be a vandal fighter. As it is, I do it in a rather haphazard fashion. I wish it were possible to have certain tools without having to be an admin.) My irritation grew out of a combination of having experienced the whole situation, and then seeing you second guessing several editors and admins. I felt it was unfair and improper, and expected it to be more proper for you to AGF since you hadn't gone through all the IP's, username's, and situation's edit histories before asking such pointed questions. Your recent comment to Scientizzle seems to indicate that you are beginning to learn the history and understand what we've all been talking about. But regardless of that, I could probably have worded some of my comments better, and I hope this explanation will assure you that I hold no animosity toward you and still respect you as an editor and admin. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Avathaar (talk · contribs)

I agree with Hans' comment and will endeavor to avoid any further derailment of your work at User talk:Avathaar. It was not my intention to contribute to the problem, but I can see how my comments may not be helping the situation. Good luck, — Scientizzle 21:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Response

You had reposted an edit of NoOtherIDAvailable's containing an assertion that appears to be factually inaccurate. I assumed that you were unaware of this and thought that the most appropriate way to inform you was to post the evidence in context. Brunton (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

AN thread started on User:Dr.Jhingaadey

A thread has been started to discuss this whole matter:

• Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return

You are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"One or two specific studies that you think should be mentioned..."

The problem with this approach is that it allows (in fact encourages) cherry-picking of positive papers, even if we restrict ourselves to adequately controlled and blinded studies. The test for statistical significance is that there is a 5% or less chance that the result is the result of chance; this means that even for perfectly designed and conducted trials, one in 20 will produce a false positive. When we factor in the poor quality of many studies (see for example Linde et al. (1999) Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy), and issues such as publication bias and the "desk drawer effect", the occurrence of false positives in published trials is probably much higher than this. Including cherry-picked selections of favourable trials is likely to give a highly misleading impression. The article uses meta analyses and systematic reviews, which include all the available evidence, to avoid this. This has been repeatedly explained to Avathaar (in his previous incarnation as NoOtherIDAvailable).

The study discussed in the passage you linked to is meaningless as far as assessing the efficacy of homoeopathy is concerned because it was neither randomised nor blinded and relied on subjective assessment by the patients, so there is no way it can eliminate the placebo effect. Studies of this type are really not helpful. Regards, Brunton (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)