User talk:KBlott

Welcome!

Hello, KBlott, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Ryan shell (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroleptic Deletions

Thanks for your excellent suggestions at User_talk:MeekMark#Neuroleptic_Deletions! I've responded to Postcrypto's question on what to do next on the talk page for Postcrypto. — MeekMark (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virus talk pages

If you add the {{WikiProject Viruses|class=Stub|importance=}} banner to the talk pages of virus articles you create you may get help with editing the articles from interested editors who monitor virus articles. Thanks for your article creations on primate viruses. --KP Botany (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Thanks again for your contributions to the organic anion transporter 1 article. Per our discussion, I have merged in the material from SLC22A6 into the organic anion transporter 1 article.

If you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool will save you some work and help insure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I recently installed a reference formatting widget but it doesn't seem to work. Perhaps I've simply been using it incorrectly. I've been filling out citations manually, which is very time consuming. I'll take a look at the PubMed template filling tool.

The merged OAT1 article looks good to me. The evidence relating to the hypothesis that nucleoside analog induced Fanconi syndrome is due to OAT1-positive cell cytotoxicity remains incomplete. Why, for example, is this condition characterized by glycosuria, hypophosphatemia, proteinuria, acidosis, and hypokalemia? Are S2 cells involved in the re-uptake of these substrates? I would like to address this question before I go on to do other things. KBlott (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what browser you are using, some of these Wikipedia widgets can be somewhat finicky. You might try using a different browser. Alternatively the template filling tool that I mentioned above is very simple to use. The hardest thing about using it is tracking down a PMID. Once you have that, it is very quick and easy to create a citation template.

Thanks for expanding the article further. Transporters are somewhat out of my area of expertise so I am sorry I can't provide much further help on this particular article. But it looks like the article is now in very good hands :-) Keep up the good work! Boghog (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm afraid my interest in OAT1 is likely to be short lived, depending on other demands for my time. There is certainly an abundance of OAT1 literature which I have yet to read. The link to the template filler that you provided was very helpful.

I am currently running under Internet Explorer. Firefox is not installed on my current system. Although Firefox has better functionality than IE, in practice, all that overhead slows down run time. My productivity tends to decline sharply when response time is slow. KBlott (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protection

I would like to write an article titled "When should antiretroviral therapy be initiated?" This issue is very controversial. May I request edit protection from user:hamiltonstone?

No. Edit protection is not used pre-emptively; content disputes should be worked out on the talk page and if necessary by use of WP:Dispute resolution. Remember that what you write must follow the principles of WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Verifiability from reliable published sources. Also, your proposed article sounds like a content fork of the existing Antiretroviral therapy; please read WP:Content forking for guidance on whether that would be appropriate. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Antiretroviral drug page claims that Antiretroviral drug treatment guidelines have changed many times. Early recommendations attempted a "hit hard, hit early" approach. This isn't true. [1] Making second attempt to correct antiretroviral page. KBlott (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but is there a specific question here? Shearonink (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are two users who are just making stuff up. This is the most recent example. Obviously antiretroviral therapy didn’t just fall out of the sky fully developed. Drug therapy was developed over time and the 1995 article by David Ho which the user cites certainly does not claim that it was not. “Hit early, hit hard” was not seriously debated until 1995. Before that, drug therapy was offered only to patients with advanced disease. [2] This particular user is not the worst one. He is willing to discuss his views. The other one isn’t. I am happy to continue to add properly sourced evidence from reliable sources. Doing so, however, will almost certainly provoke one of these two users (probably hamiltonstone) to delete the citation. I have noooooooo idea how to prevent this outcome. Can you provide any useful guidance on how to avoid this? KBlott (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose changes to the article on the articles talk page, Talk:Antiretroviral drug. Consider suggesting one small change, at first, and listen to the opinions of others; try to reach an agreed WP:CONSENSUS.

If you are unable to agree, seek a third opinion, or if necessary, some kind of mediation; there are many options to resolve disagreements - see WP:DISCUSS.

If, during calm discussions, another editor refuses to be civil or breaks other policies (such as adding unreferenced material), they can be appropriately warned and ultimately blocked from editing; this is an entirely separate issue to any content dispute. In the content discussion, make sure you stick to discussion of the subject, and not other editors.

Above all, stay calm. Remember there is no deadline. Chzz ► 07:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Definition of Denial

Regarding this edit, how should I respond? (This users behaviour resembles that of hamiltonstone.) About one in three AIDS carriers suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder. [3] Denial is a symptom of PTSD.

Additional discussion on talk pages WILL NOT lead to consensus as the edit is patently unreasonable. The next logical step is to post the evidence that PTSD is common among people with HIV/AIDS along with the evidence that denial is a symptom of the disorder. However, such a post WILL be deleted. How should I proceed? KBlott (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All pages are built on consensus, using if necessary the article talk page or in some cases (especially where that page is poorly frequented by other editors) the project's talk page.. If there is no consensus to add, then it should not go in. If it ends up with just 2 editors disagreeing, then one can use some of the options provided at dispute resolution. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person reverting you was correct. Your edit didn't add anything to the article. "AIDs Denial" is more specific than simply "Denial". "AIDs Denial" makes the article read better. Hope that helped. Mr. R00t ^Talk 23:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Where should I put the material on PTSD-HIV? [4] KBlott (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could add a bit to the HIV article, and/or to the Post-traumatic stress disorder one. If in doubt, suggest the edit first on the associated talk page(s), Talk:HIV or Talk:Post-traumatic stress disorder. Chzz ► 04:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. I think the material would be welcome on the PTSD page. Although the material really belongs on the HIV page, the HIV page users are not ready to welcome it. Provided I can successfully avoid continued harassment, the quality of the HIV page is really more your problem than mine.

Citations 2

A new nomenclature seems to be in use for citations. As I recall the nomenclature resembles the following: <ref name= ''name ''>{{cite journal| pmid = ''pmid id number ''}} </ref>. However, I cannot recall the exact syntax. Can you tell me where to look it up. KBlott (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More information on the "reference name" format that you are referring to may be found here. There is also documentation available for the {{cite journal}} template. Finally there are several methods for including in-line citation that have been in use for several years (see WP:FN). While no one method is preferred over another, if one type of formatting has been established in an article, then that format type should be maintained in subsequent edits by other editors. Boghog (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may help you to go into Special:Preferences, click on "Gadgets", then tick the box next to "refTools". Then you will have something like this in your edit window, which makes life so much easier. sonia♫ 05:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denialism

Before we get into an edit war over a heading, I thought i would explain the issue here. There are two prevailing terms used in the literature for the issue covered by the HIV article: "AIDS denialism" and "HIV denialism". Those are the prevailing terms, and that is why one of those two headings was used in the article; it is also why that is the title of the main article on the subject, AIDS denialism. I have no particular issue with which of those two terms is used to head this section, but it is a title based on the literature, not my preferences. Omitting both HIV and AIDS from the title implies something broader that is not what the WP article is doing. Would you prefer "HIV denialism"? If so, please propose at the article talk page - my initial reaction is that "AIDS denialism" is preferred, just because that is the title of the main WP article, but I'd be happy to change to HIV denialism, if that is what you and other editors supported. Will also post to article talk page. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word denialism is not restricted to those who deny that HIV causes AIDS. It is not the most important form of denial within the HIV community. KBlott (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your view - and you may be right - but the WP article needs to rely on the secondary literature of quality sources and not give undue weight to viewpoints within that reliable literature. I'm still of the view that the issues you have previously raised are (quite strongly) raised in the "Treatment" section of the HIV article, but if you don't agree, you need to make the case on the article talk page, particularly as regards sourcing. Best wishes, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Wikipedia should not be giving undue weight to minority view points. The consensus within the expert community is that antiretroviral therapy is indicated at all stages of the disease. I will not discuss this further on the on the HIV and antiretrovial talk pages as denialists cannot be reasoned with and become hostile when their delusions are confronted with evidence. KBlott (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had taken your above comment as a decision to disengage, whereas in fact it appears to mean you have decided to continue to edit the article while not discussing on the talk page. Please see WP:CONSENSUS (amongst other policies) - i doubt you will advance your cause in this manner. I am about to add some explanation of some of the issues on the article talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for sock puppetry

Do not create sock puppets again, as you did with BadBabysitter (talk · contribs), whom I just blocked. It is against our policy to abuse multiple accounts to circumvent or to deceive. The next time you do that, you will be blocked for sock puppetry. Regards, –MuZemike 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned, and now you have been indefinitely blocked for abusive sock puppetry. –MuZemike 06:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Thomas Cavalier-Smith.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Thomas Cavalier-Smith.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. 95.221.13.128 (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]