User talk:Ryanspir

Welcome!

Hello, Ryanspir, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Glavering, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Falcon8765 (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Glavering

The article Glavering has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NEOLOGISM

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Falcon8765 (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Promotion

Wikipedia is not here to promote a commercial product. Independent sources are required, not patent applications or EPA memos. Vsmith (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

re: Wp:medrs

Hi Ryan. Unfortunately I can't really help you resolve the issue, since as a Wikimedia Foundation staff member I cannot and do not resolve content disputes. Please continue to engage with the other contributors to the page, and on the Talk page of the article. Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, I don't think that you have properly read WP:MEDRS, it requires a higher level of sourcing than required for other articles. To quote "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies". You are entirely wrong in thinking that an FDA 'clearance' for a product is some sort of 'position statement' - this statement from the NCCAM however is. Mikenorton (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed some material from an edit you placed at User talk:Vsmith under the heading "merry x-mas 2", which I considered to be a personal attack. Please read WP:CIVIL regarding one of our Five Pillars and note that "Personal attacks and harassment are... damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks." A merry xmas to you too. Ben MacDui 20:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am here regarding that same edit. Continue making personal attacks, and I will block you. KillerChihuahua 20:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Ben MacDui in order to maintain the thread. "Hello, i didn't intend my message to vsmith to be a personal attack. Highly sarcastic, yes. And that is because he has called my edits blatant. Now, how i can propose of stripping him of an admin status? He is abusing his status for enforcing his personal view on the medical silver article and disregarding usage of wp:medrs. i'll refrain from anything which can be seen as a personal attack however.Ryanspir (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir"

Please note that this is a collegiate environment not a chat room. It is not clear to me how you could expect that your message to Vsmith to be interpreted as anything other than a personal attack, but I am pleased that you intend to avoid repetitions. If you wish to pursue a grievance against an admin you could request assistance at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. However, I caution you that any such post is likely to involve an investigation of any and all aspects of the matter in hand including the behaviour of the poster. From what little I have seen of the presenting issue your approach leaves a great deal to be desired. I urge you to read WP:CIVIL, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE very carefully before taking any such step. Regards, Ben MacDui 12:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ryan,

You also need to read WP:CANVAS. We have a rule against specifically recruiting people to join a discussion based on your belief that they'll agree with you.

As for the apparent content dispute, the usual question to ask is not "Does this article treat all the viewpoints equally?", but rather "If I went to ten randomly selected, mainstream healthcare professionals, does this article show the kinds of opinions I'd likely hear from them?" If regular, published, reliable sources are "90% against" (for example), then the Wikipedia article is supposed to be "90% against" as well. (Whether Wikipedia editors or members of the general public are "for" or "against" is irrelevant.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cs blue

Of course I can't. Not every case get recorded in the medical literature. If you want to know what is recorded in the medical literature you can run searches on pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

©Geni 21:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

MastCell

I saw this edit of yours. MastCell hasn't made any edits whatsoever for the past week. In fact, his very last edit was a reply to you. He's hardly ignoring you specifically. Huon (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Hi Ryanspir, please stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote a product or business. I am talking about this edit, which is the latest in what appears to be a long-term effort to get Wikipedia articles to use sources related to American Biotech Labs to highlight or promote its products. Wikipedia is not for promoting a product or business, see WP:NOTPROMOTION. This editing behavior has become tendentious, and if it continues, sanctions may be sought against your editing capabilities so that the disruptive promotional editing stops. Thank you... Zad68 16:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved here from my User Talk page to keep this conversation in one place:

Could please provide a direct quote from the policy which shows that my edit was promotional? If you are unable to provide one, please explain why did you call my edit promotional. And in the edit about the last warning you are using a completely different reason. So it should be first warning, how can it be last without first? :) Ryanspir (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:REFSPAM, combined with your statement here "I also believe that talking about nanosilver use and not mentioning american biotech labs is similar to talking about gravitation and not to mentioning newton. They are the only nanosilver company which has invested in research and got fda clearance. Without them it all would be only alternative medicine." and your continued attempts to insert the WP:REFSPAM at the article after clear consensus against it. Zad68 19:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And? The policy clearly says: inserting into multiple articles. I haven't inserted it in multiple articles. That policy is further about spam as promotion. Ryanspir (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You know you don't have to start a new section for each sentence, right? You can continue an existing conversation by editing and adding to the existing section. It says "typically involves" and clearly you're playing the letter of the WP:RULES against the spirit. As long as you understand now that there is firm consensus at the article that the American Biotech EPA certification is not acceptable for use to support general statements about silver, and therefore won't be attempting to reinsert the certification, we are done and don't have to spend any more time on this. You can reply here if you like but at this point I'm just going to watch the article for any more edits along this line. Zad68 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

my phone i'm using now don't allow me to edit, only new section. You have accused me of promotion and not spamming, right? The promotion is mentioned as the goal or one of the goals of spamming. It doesn't define my edit promotional. This policy is about spamming. Spamming is about mentioning something in many places. Ryanspir (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for answering that question, I was wondering. I sometimes edit on my phone as well and it is indeed a pain to try to edit an existing section! My previous phone had a physical keyboard that made it a lot easier, but my current phone does not and the keyboard takes up most of the screen. See you at the article. Zad68 20:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, so common, remove all these warnings, retract accusitions and lets try to reach a consensus based on agf. Ryanspir (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to remove this whole section yourself per WP:OWNTALK. Zad68

Well, it would be an act of agf if you would remove them if you realized they were misissued and i'm specifically refering to the article's talk page. Ryanspir (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not so far expressed at the article Talk page my concerns that your edits are promotional, however, by my quick count, there are two editors there (not me) who have expressed suspicions that the edits promotional and not encyclopedic. It's possible if I went into the Talk page archives I'd find more. Zad68 21:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

They are not promotional. You can visit a page of any antibiotic and you will see the name of the company which manufactures it. Ryanspir (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Just to give you a heads up that you are at 3/4 reverts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ryanspir, please also note that prompting someone else to revert for you can count toward violation of the WP:3RR. -- Scray (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Point of zad

You have entered into rhetoric. But i'm just asking a factual clarification. Distinct or not? Yes or no. If no, 3 examples of such studies or maybe even 2 from all the sources on this article including advisories. Please just anything which proves your point. Ryanspir (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nanoparticle silver is a subtype of silver used for medical purposes. Why not do it this way: Use WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to expand the article so much with excellent content that it becomes obvious that WP:SIZERULE is exceeded and the way to proceed is to split. Zad68 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Zad nanoSilver

well, as desoto pointed it such article already exists. What is your opinion on http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/3/103002/---/l=2/changeLang=true/lartid=103002/orga=/type=/theme=/bestellbar=/new_abt=/uac ? And the articles of BErnd which are being refereed there? Ryanspir (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing other's comments on talk pages

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mikenorton (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Right. Legitimate comments. I have deleted only non-legimate disruptive comments. Thanks :) Ryanspir (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:talk page guidelines#Editing comments lists the situations where comments may be edited or removed. Comments that are simply disruptive, without personal attacks or obvious trolling or vandalism, are listed as being best left. Hope that helps clear things up. CarrieVS (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mikenorton (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Have reported the issue to ANI [1]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Colloidal silver shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems you have now hit four reverts.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

3 in the last 24 hours. Same as yourself. :) Ryanspir (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are currently engaged in an edit war at colloidal silver. I have read your response at ANI and would urge you to consider the possibility that, given that there are several editors in opposition to the change you are trying to implement, consensus may be against what you are trying to do. It may be time to take a deep breath and step away. Please do not repeat this change until you have established a clear consensus for such a change on the talk page. I note that this talk page discussion would appear to have already established a consensus. If you continue to edit war, regardless of whether or not you technically avoid violating WP:3RR, you may be blocked. If you have any further questions, let me know. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you and have no intention to continue edit war at this time. (Or hopefully never.) It's clear however that 1) The consensus is erroneous and it contradicts the presented evidence and based solely on "group solidarity of similarly biased editors". 2) Editor Doc James started doing the revert while I was still replying with evidence, ie before consensus was reached. 3) There was no introduction of any evidence from any of the editors to show that colloidal silver shall redirect to the page they have chosen. My question would be: what shall be done? It's absolutely clear logic that "colloidal silver" = "Silver nanoparticles". To backup this point I provided citations from this article, silver nanoparticles article, nccam and fda. None of them were refuted. They just forced it by number. And it won't matter if post factum they will find some reasons. What is important that they reached their decision in the way I have described it. Ryanspir (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I need to make this clear. It doesn't matter if you think everyone else is "biased" or their reasoning is flawed or whatever else, if everyone disagrees with you you can't just force your own preferred option forward. Sometimes you just have to accept that people don't agree with you and let the issue go, regardless of what you believe the "truth" is. Also, Doc James doesn't have to wait for you to respond before reverting your changes, because the way we work on wikipedia is to be bold, revert and discuss. In fact, the onus is on you, as the editor introducing the change, to convince everyone else before reintroducing the content you want. If you cannot convince the community that what you are saying is correct (and it would appear at this point that that discussion has been had and come to a conclusion) then you'll just have to accept that you can't have it your way. That's just the way things sometimes go. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, since you are here I'm welcoming you to participate in the talk page, editing of the article and perhaps say on the talk page your opinion about where colloidal silver shall redirect considering your personal knowledge as a physician and presented evidence at that section. It's not about to "have it my way". It's about to have it according to wp:medrs and the related wiki policies. Ryanspir (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I do not wish to become involved in this issue, and so I decline to take part. Please think about what we've discussed. Regards. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, regarding the block message. I didn't post it. In fact, I have commented on the user's page that I haven't yet report him. Why would I post a block message and immediately incriminate myself? That would be highly unusual. I don't do things like that. What I posted was { {subst:an3-notice} } because it was written: You must notify any user you report. Than I see out of that the blocking message appeared. About your unwillingness to participate, that's a bit sad, because this article is the most biased article I have ever seen on wikipedia. Some knowledgeable person must clean it up. It's a wikipedia policy not to provide a medical advice, right? But reading this article it's like an advice in big red letter: DON'T USE COLLOIDAL SILVER FOR ANY CONDITION. Since nanosilver is currently approved in the US for external application, that would mean people may prescribed this gel for external application by a conventional doctor, but decide not to take it due to reading of this article and thus have complications if not worse. Ryanspir (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Something to think about: you're asking me to participate on the basis that you believe me to be "knowledgeable", but I think you should bear in mind that the editor you're bumping heads with, Doc James, is a far, far more senior doctor than I (I would call him "boss" on the wards) and is immeasurably more knowledgeable than I. Just bear that in mind when reading what he has to say. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, i feel it's his experience and seniorness which holds him back. You can easily review the articles I have submitted in Current research on nanosilver and become quiet knowledgeable on this topic. I feel you are more dynamic, you like traveling which contributes to openmindness and you agree that 300,000,000 people can make the same mistake. If only Doc James would be willing to change his mind, read the research, reread relevant wp:medrs policies he would become a perfect contributor. When I say to read, I mean read in order to understand in a positive way, not read as in order to find a points of contradiction because of his prior personal opinion. Ryanspir (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the above...

1. Please refrain from removing or refactoring the comments of others on talk pages, as you clearly are not hugely knowledgeable about the situations in which this would be appropriate.
2. Do not add block notices to other editors' talk pages, or in any other way impersonate an administrator. Any further actions of this type will lead to a block.

Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats fine with me. However regarding block message I didn't post it. I think it was some bug. Ryanspir (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It was in a diff of one of your edits. You clearly posted it, and I don't see how there could remotely be any bug there whatsoever. I also couldn't find any mention of your report at the 3RR noticeboards, but that may have been an oversight on my behalf. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have provided an explanation in the above section here. You can see my messages on the talk page of the user doc james. I think they correlate. I was also wondering why this block message has appeared. In fact there were two message and I undid myself once to remove the other one. I didn't report the user, because he said he made just 3 reverts and not 4. Ryanspir (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It was precisely what I had in mind Lukeno94 that Doc James has to give it a day or two instead of starting edit war. He reports his incident with me, but is what he did is right? I have just provided the argument in the section discussing the redirect upon a request of a user. But doc james proceeded as if consensus was reached, whereby it clearly was still in the process of discussion. Doc James had started the edit war. About bogus block, it was my first time to try to report edit war and clearly I don't know how to issue those warnings, especially the bogus one. And for what reason? And why would I issue two blocks and then undoing myself? And after that saying to the user that I didn't report him yet? Issuing a block and saying that I didn't report him? I'm acting in good faith. So I'm asking to leave Colloidal Silver to be redirected to Silver Nanoparticles. Ryanspir (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Block notice

With respect to the block notice / impersonation thing it appears Ryan had a bit of bad luck. When he added the template it had just been broken by another user per [2]. Thus this bit was not intentional on his part. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad we cleared this one. :) Ryanspir (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I fully apologize for my communications with regards to this particular part of the issue. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please restore the redirect to Silver nanoparticles? The current redirect is totally wrong by meaning (colloidal silver is a substance and it has to redirect to a substance, not to a particular medical use of that substance); scientifically colloidal silver and silver nanoparticles are synonyms. Ryanspir (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That we won't do, you need to continue the discussion on the talk page; whatever consensus is reached you must follow, regardless of whether you believe it to be correct or not. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. I just say to protect it for one week only. And if in 3 days they won't change their opinion I'll file dispute resolution. It's needed to protect the integrity of wikipedia of what is obviously wrong, such as redirecting from substance name to a section of it's medical use while bypassing the article about the substance. Ryanspir (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Doc James, I would be glad to receive your apology about the block part. You have accused me, it proven to be wrong, I said from the very beginning I didn't post it and I have informed you that I didn't report you. It's normal in such situations to apologize and that's what I would do if I would wrongly accuse you. Thank you.Ryanspir (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Woah there cowboy. You can't really file dispute resolution if the consensus of a multitude of editors is against your edit. You need to provide reliable sources and such to make your point correctly, and to stand a chance of changing people's minds. Also, he did not accuse you of making a fake block notice, it was myself that did - Doc James simply said it was "all very strange", which it was, and had every right to include that diff in the AN/I. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Another warning

Repeatedly calling other editors biased (or any other degrading comment) is a personal attack and will not be tolerated. Comment on content, not editors, or you will be blocked. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll follow your advise, but I propose you to stop threatening me either. A mere advise is enough. :)

And it's not a personal attack. It's an observation. And, it's not just my observations:

First article from archive 2 talk page of the article:

Undue weight and anti-colloidal silver bias.

The anti-colloidal silver bias of the more determined editors of this article has rendered it almost useless as a fair reference source. The fanaticism of these editors to paint colloidal silver as a scam and a great public danger has resulted in an unbalanced article of of unrelenting negativity. For example, the claim that the use of colloidal silver is not based on 'medical evidence' is repeated in various ways at least 7 TIMES throughout the article. The claim that silver is toxic is also repeated at least 7 TIMES. These repetitive negative statements create an overwhelming impression that silver is immensely dangerous and totally without any scientific credibility. All this in spite of the fact that silver has proven antimicrobial properties and the only proven toxicity is the relatively harmless cosmetic condition called argyria. Those wanting to continually present colloidal silver as a health hazard should note that silver is not a toxic or heavy metal, and that the FDA has not banned the sale of colloidal silver even though they have the power to do so if they consider it dangerous.DHawker (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

First article of archive 3:

Biased Colloidal Silver Article

This article is extremely one sided, on the verge of propaganda, and only researched from the point of view that colloidal silver is a scam. Why go to the effort to write such an article if you aren't going to present ALL the information, if you're going to leave out important truths just to make you're OPINION seem like fact? I have used colloidal silver for various levels of infections and gotten great results every time, with children and adults. The thing I think a lot of people forget when they are trying to be "scientific" is to research ALL available information, not just what supports the OPINION they've already decided to have. Certain persons are seemingly afraid of handling any part of their own health care, and would rather defer to a doctor for any cut, bruise, or mild infection. It's o.k. to know things about your body and take care of YOURSELF. In our modern western world, drugs and doctors have become god-like entities to NEVER be questioned. Antibiotics are given out like candy, with less and less effectiveness over the long term. Please...use all parts of you're brain, and stop spreading misinformation to people who really want facts.Vinland999 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many more entries similar to the ones quoted. Ryanspir (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• DHawker was blocked for abusive usage of accounts. I don't think Vinland999 was a very experienced editor. Basalisk is not threatening you; merely informing you of the rules. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Issue

I began looking at our article on medical uses of silver in Jan 13th 2013 after not making any edits there for about a year. Ryan you posted on my talk page asking me if I could take a look at the suitability of a source from the FDA on CS. I asked you if you could point me to the source and describe what you want to include. Nothing. I asked for a link. Still nothing. I even asked a third time. And left me a cryptic message pertaining to 446 bytes.[3]

Than the same thing occurs on the silver talk page. You posted a while bunch of links to source. A great start. When asked to pick one and suggest something to say with it, nothing.[4]. You need to convince you fellow editing with cogent arguments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I feel we can get a fresh start here and work together based on AGF. I welcome that. So lets see how we will go about the redirect page and lets go from there. (About 446 bytes - I have posted the links on your page and you can see in the history I have added 446 bytes - but when I looked again it was empty - could be another bug?) But it doesn't matter at this moment as it's premature anyway.

I have posted the link to the FDA advisory you have requested in the article talk page. I don't think we should misunderstand it because they use 'may' instead of 'can' or 'are'. We understand what they meant even if they didn't choose the words to be super-precise. Ryanspir (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The second issue is using quackwatch. I have a strong feeling it fails medrs on two counts I have mentioned. Unless you can provide a direct quote from medrs which contradicts my opinion. I would be happy to solve it without dispute resolution. Ryanspir (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We went to dispute resolution and the conclusions are clear [5]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So is anyone still participating in the DRN discussion? Ryanspir, the ball's in your court, but if you don't want to discuss it there any more I'll close the thread. CarrieVS (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly I'll discuss it. Just have posted in the discussion there. Ryanspir (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've replied. Can I suggest that, so as not to just go over old ground with the other editors, you and I discuss your objections and if we can't overcome them, we'll get them organised into a clear argument which we can then ask the others to look at. CarrieVS (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm about to post a reply at the dispute page. If that argument won't be enough for you to render a definitive decision I'll be certainly inclined to follow your suggestion. Please also allow up to 48 hours till my next reply. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Following your suggestion I have proposed a content with one of the recently introduced studies at the "A broken ref" section. Ryanspir (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ryanspir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Excuse me, but I don't know these people and I didn't use those accounts. I'm currently in Thailand (Nong Khai and Udon Thani provinces), you may check the IP's of the other users. Ryanspir (talk) 6:43 am, Today (UTC−6)

Accept reason:

Technical evidence does not indicate sockpuppetry. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Microbiome

Have you read this NY Times article and this Wikipedia articles? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/health/human-microbiome-project-decodes-our-100-trillion-good-bacteria.html?pagewanted=all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Microbiome_Project I think if I would say about that to you few years ago and provide some 10 articles from PUBmed you wouldn't accept it, and you would say that microbiome and anything which uses this principle for a cure is a quackery. But we are in the time of rapid change. I bet they didn't teach in the medical school about Microbiome, especially in the way it's introduced in the above mentioned links. I'm not directly connecting it to the colloidal silver (silver nanoparticles) of course. But I just want to say, that some respectable scientists had written that it's "a new vector in antimicrobials". Please let me know if you would like pubmed links to the articles saying that. About Silver nanoparticles and Colloidal silver there is actually a very slight difference, I'll post about it on the talk page. However in short, the difference is as much as ciprofloxacin and CIPROFLOXACIN HYDROCHLORIDE. Which is practically the same. Using scientific language we may use the second term, while in the common practice we would use the first term. Colloidal silver is silver nanoparticles in a water. Water is obviously inactive. Sometimes they use more scientific term "agnp". Example is this link: http://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB72129214.htm. And this www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22958173. Ryanspir (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

Let's put that unfortunate misunderstanding behind us. I've replied to your comment on my talk page. CarrieVS (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Glavering?

I am the volunteer at the DRN on Collodial Silver/Quackwatch area. I noticed that your page on Glavering was deleted. I cannot find the page that was deleted and I would like to see it. Was this in regard to some characters or something else? 24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a 'practical philosophical concept' which defines us as who we are. That was my first try to make a contribution here. Ryanspir (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Cancer

What is your opinion on http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120202094700.htm and the referenced article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C2DT12399A)? Is it a respectable source? Ryanspir (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No science daily is not a suitable reference. It is a popular press peice The study in question took place in a petre dish and is a primary source.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, per wp:medrs using of primary sources is not bad. Please see WP:USEPRIMARY "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad".

The research itself is aimed at ingestion of a variation of a colloidal silver in order to treat cancer. But I didn't actually was asking at this time if we can use it in the article. What I'm asking is whether in your opinion this research is respectable? Ryanspir (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Hi. Glad you're feeling better. I'm just letting you know that I moved your latest comment on my talk page to the end of the section about that topic. Didn't want you to not find it and think I'd just deleted it or anything. :) CarrieVS (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually the comment I left on your talk page was personal, but I also wanted to add to the discussion, yet didn't know how to do that since it was archived. Ryanspir (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid it's gone. I can't find any mention in the volunteer guide about it being permissible to retrieve an archived case. But we seemed to be making some progress, so how about we discuss it on a talk page? We can do it here, or on my page, or on the article talk page - but I think it might be more productive to keep it on one of our pages and between the two of us at first, so that we can work out what changes you want and what compromises you would agree to. Then, when you have a definite proposal, we can move it to the Medical uses of silver talk page and put it to the other editors.

Our other options would be:

• open a new DRN case: I don't think that's a great idea just yet.
• or just leave it and find a different article to work on: but I get the impression you won't want to do that.
• or take it straight to the article talk page: I'm not terribly keen on that because, (and this is basically the same reason I'm against going back to the DRN straight away) if you'll let me be frank, I think the other guys working on that article are more than a little fed up. I don't think they will respond well to opening up the same discussion with the same arguments and going over the same ground. If, on the other hand, you brought them a definite proposal, and addressed their points and showed them that you'd listened to what they said and weren't just going to rehash the same arguments that didn't get you anywhere, and that you have evolved past the earlier disruption, that'll be a different matter.

What say you? CarrieVS (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually Desotho is not a part of the DRN :) so I have deleted the whole conversation here. I think I can do that on my talk page, but if not, I apologize. Not to be seen as out of respect to him, but simply it's redundant.

My say is following: There are no new points that I will introduce. The only additional point could be the Cancer section which I've posted on Doc James's talk page. (In addition to what I have posted on your page regarding arbcom and Zad.)

I propose the DRN section to be copied & pasted out of the archive into the working space, unless some more experienced users will suggest otherwise.

I have agreed to the compromise proposed by Mastcell. That also automatically made the numbers as such, that if any out of the three editors will accept the compromise, we have a consensus and the DRN won't fail.

Arbcom's decision in the past was not to allow quackwatch to be used on that article. I welcome if you will have the time to review their reasoning of why they have decided not to allow it. In all of their discussion I have read the view of the majority was that it's a poor source and it's a very controversial source. The quackwatch site is also accepting donations and selling some books so I would call it commercial (at the very least to a degree) which doesn't help it's credibility.

So the ball is in the court of yours and the 3 other editors. Ryanspir (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I think about that.

• You can delete comments on your own talk page. It's usually considered better to archive them, but deleting them is permitted.
• The DRN case is done. I looked through all the information for volunteers and I can't find anything that suggests that we're allowed to bring it back. Even if we were, I would suggest that we don't. I was extremely close to closing it as 'failed' when it stopped anyway, and I do not intend to keep on discussing it for much longer - if we don't make obvious progress quickly, or if there is any more backtracking or repeating or cherry-picking which comments or parts of comments to respond to, I will wash my hands of this case, and I will recommend that you let this particular dispute go as well.

• Mastcell's suggestion has already been rejected by the other editors. The reason is not that they don't want to use the sources Mastcell suggested. It is because both he and myself had not fully understood the reasons for citing Quackwatch.

As Zad explained in reply to Mastcell's comment, the other editors are in agreement that Quackwatch's opinion on the subject is useful and relevant information, and they wish to keep the "Quackwatch says..." line in not just as in-text attribution for the information but as something relevant in itself. It certainly seems to me that Quackwatch is a good enough source for what Quackwatch says, so here's what I suggest:

• • We include Quackwatch's opinion, with Quackwatch as a source. (We will need to agree finally which - or both - of the two articles to cite and what wording to use, but can we talk about that after we've come to an agreement about including it at all.)
  • We also use one or more of Mastcell's sources as a citation for the fact that there is no evidence that taking colloidal silver by mouth has any medical benefit. (Again, we would need to decide which source(s) and what wording to use, but again, can we discuss that after agreeing in principle. I think it's much easier to work things out by addressing one point at a time.)
• What do you think about that? CarrieVS (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry for making the comment about others being fed up with you. I said it without meaning any offence, but it was at best unnecessary. I have removed the remark, and I regret making it in the first place. CarrieVS (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I know you said it without meaning any offense. Ryanspir (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

De-archiving DRN case

The Talk:Medical uses of silver DRN case has been de-archived in order to close it. Please visit the page and state whether you will accept the proposed solution. There will be no extensive discussion. If all participants agree to it, the case will be closed as 'resolved', if not, as 'failed'. CarrieVS (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't be so mean. It suppose to be a friendly discussion and resolution. You are constantly being intimidated into the tone of Zad. I have removed his personal attack by threatening that was absolutely misplaced being on the DRN talk page.

It's clear that I'm acting in good faith and at the same time Zad and at times other editors are not acting in AGF. I would suggest if you see such pattern to report Zad to ANI. It's clearly that I'm maintaining a discussion, I have come with a new research that supports my point and I have not edited the article itself. I have just answered the editors on the article talk page regarding the cancer research. To call it a tedious editing is to show that he is personalizing editing process. Ryanspir (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ryanspir: I urge you to avoid accusations of bad faith, especially in the third person. Do you wish to retract that statemenet? Otherwise, one of us should alert Zad68 to this conversation. -- Scray (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not implying it as to offend Zad68. And I didn't mention it as my opinion, that is why I have used 3rd person. I was mentioning an opinion of a completely not involved volunteer. She said: "..I just got the impression that the other editors who were involved in the DRN discussion are pretty much past the point of assuming good faith..". I have called and continue to call Zad and other editors to have a collaborative work in a nice friendly atmosphere. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, thank you for your concern, but I assure you (as I have before) that I am not intimidated in the slightest, by Zad or anyone else. If I am agreeing with Zad about anything it is purely because I happen to agree with him. I am not in the habit of being intimidated by people who cannot actually do anything to me.

I do not believe I am being mean, but this discussion cannot go on indefinitely. You have tried plenty of times to gain consensus, and I have supported your doing so, perhaps for longer than some people would have done. This latest line of reasoning has failed to change anyone's minds. You are not going to 'win' this argument, and while I cannot forbid you from continuing it, I believe that we have reached the point where it would be disruptive, and for me to encourage you to do so or to allow the DRN case to continue would be disruptive on my part.

I also do not agree that there is any evidence of bad faith on the part of any other editors involved, and I do not agree that Zad's comment on WT:DRN was a personal attack or a threat; I am concerned that you may be confused about the term tendentious editing. To describe your editing as tedious would be uncivil to say the least, but tendentious does not mean tedious.

If you feel that any action such as mediation or an ANI report is needed, that is your decision. However, I do not advise it. CarrieVS (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me. When I say you being "mean", I wasn't referring to your decision(s). I was just referring to the tone. Other than that, I agree with your position. I'm just saying that saying things in more friendly informal way could have been better. Thank you. (About zad, I'm not interested into entering "wars" with him. I have just pointed out that his post was irrelevant and I considered it as personal attack). Even of out of courtesy, he could have avoided of restoring them. But I'll leave it at that. Ryanspir (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Colloidal silver research

I've found a few papers that might interest you, Ryanspir. I don't want to support quackery, so I wish to reaffirm that all sources should be used carefully:

Antitumor activity of colloidal silver on MCF-7 human breast cancer cells

EFFECT OF COLLOIDAL SILVER AGAINST THE CYTOTOXICITY OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE AND NAPHTHAZARIN ON PRIMARY CULTURED CORTICAL ASTROCYTES

Antimicrobial polyethyleneimine-silver nanoparticles in a stable colloidal dispersion --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with your position. Some editors consider me as "pro-cs" for no valid reasons. I'm not "pro-cs" editor, I'm pro-balanced editor. I would like all the views to be represented. But because currently many editors are considering cs as quack, and thus all their edits reflect it, my edits and proposals simply appear to be "pro-cs" (because of this background).

Would this article's "editorial majority" consisted of "pro-cs" editors, they just might have viewed me as "neg-cs" editor. And that's the funny side of our "cold war" that I want to transform into collaborative work.

I think once the amount of produced facts will reach a certain point, the "neg-cs" editors will stop consider cs as "quack" and this will result into collaborative work.

In the last article you have provided it says: "Excellent colloidal stability and antimicrobial activity are important parameters for silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) in a range of biomedical applications." - It's a glowing sentence for it mentions colloidal stability of silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) and thus validates my opinion, that all nanosilver, nanoparticles, AgNPs are cs. Ryanspir (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to your question, I don't really think that much on the topic. I do believe if everyone sticks closely to the reliable sources, things will be fine. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

re:

I think your argument belongs to the category of argument from design. There are many arguments, please look at existence of god you might be able to find something there, or if you can find a reliable source that supports your argument then you can simply add it to page existence of god. Kiatdd (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right, I'll be following your advice. However, I think something regarding "signs" should be added to God article as well. What is your opinion? Ryanspir (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources, alternative medicine, etc.

You've been raising some interesting questions at MEDRS, and not getting much support. I don't have an opinion on the matter, and am comfortable with the emphasis on secondary sources. But it does bring up issues, D-mannose being an excellent example. I just wanted to make sure you knew there's a venue for wider input from the community: WP:VPP. TimidGuy (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe try WP:RFC. You could give examples of gaps in Wikipedia coverage, give examples of how WebMD and other encyclopedic works deal with the situation, list a couple of the proposals that came up on MEDRS talk, and then see what the community thinks. The RfC should be neutrally worded. Right now the only option on the table is exclusion, and that decision should be made by the broader community, I would think. TimidGuy (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not refactor others' comments

Ryan, do not remove/copy and paste comments of others on article Talk pages, as you did here and here. You have been warned against doing this several times now, it is disruptive, do not do it again. Zad68 18:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was removal of comments and it was about three months ago. This time is not similar, I have just moved your comments in order to keep the discussion organized, anyway it's my mistake since I have started the off-topic first. Ryanspir (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Colloidal silver bias

I agree the cs article is very biased. It contains a long list of evidence that silver kills bacteria, to then claim there's no evidence that a suspension of it has any antibacterial activity is a bit short on credibility.

AIUI:

1. There's no lack of evidence it kills bacteria
2. I've used it numerous times with an excellent record of success, which indicates it does work at killing bacteria
3. But there's no sufficiently large heavily funded study to convince the world at large

Trouble is, there's a large amount of misinformation and illogic about cs, the quackwatch page being a good example. AIUI this is started by people with profit to make from other options, and believed and spread by folk that fail to see through the illogic, nonfact and manipulation tactics.

It seems to me the problem isn't a conspiracy. More that once people are convinced by phoney arguments, they'll defend their illogical nonfactual viewpoint to the death, regardless of how little it adds up.

Given that, I don't see the wiki article getting more factual any day soon. A bigger question is how to prove cs works (or doesn't) to the world at large. What works is a large published double blind trial, but that takes considerable funds, and cs is never going to profit anyone enough to fund one, as its not patentable. Tabby (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. However, by participating in WP:MED, WP:MEDRS and the colloidal silver article its possible to raise awareness. Writing to NCCAM to revise their advisory at least to the level of USFDA is another thing to do IMHO. Ryanspir (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback

Hello, I commented on your question at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship

Hello Ryanspir,

Thank you for visiting my talk page and asking about mentorship. Although I am honored that you would ask, I must decline at this time. First of all, my current mentorship takes a lot of time, and I want to continue providing the support that she needs. Secondly, I have no medical training and very little interest in editing medical articles. Given your ongoing interest in medical uses of silver, I would have to spend a lot of time reading medical journal articles and studying medical policies and guidelines. I am self-employed and have limited hours to devote to Wikipedia, and like to work on topics that catch my interest. In conclusion, it seems to me that you are embarked on an effort to change existing consensus about how medical silver is portrayed here on Wikipedia. My belief is that Wikipedia's coverage will change if and when the consensus in the relevant secondary coverage of the medical research changes. I have no interest in an effort to speed that change along, because I am dedicated to the neutral point of view. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in the mentorship regarding grammar, spelling, sentence construction and points elucidation. I used to be a technology writer in Russian language and currently I'm trying to improve my English writing skills. That is the sole reason I have asked you.

The topic of colloidal silver is interesting and yes I'm interested to change the current representation while maintaining neutral point of view. I think in the past my position was similar to that of the current editors because it was based merely from what is known in the mainstream medicine, however as I was interested to get experience with things and I did try it once. I did experience benefits, effectiveness, cold prevention and they weren't placebo. In my opinion, most of the mainstream doctors consider all alternative medicine and dietery supplements as semi-quacks, not just colloidal silver. What interesting, even if reliable secondary sources about effectiveness of some dietery supplements exists, it doesn't change a thing. Still doctors consider them semi-quacks. The reason in my opinion lies in the conditioning that they receive during study.

I think we shouldn't discuss colloidal silver or touch this topic if you are disinterested about it. I think we may concentrate on other topics, such as writing in English and perhaps my hypothesis I have posted on the talkpage of Existence of God.

Perhaps if you unable to provide mentorship, but may help me occasionally with suggest on polishing and English language aspects, I would appreciate it. Ryanspir (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I will be happy to discuss any aspects of Wikipedia editing with you at any time, as long as I perceive that your sincere goal is to improve this encyclopedia. I am a patient, diplomatic guy. But in the end, I can't have patience with editors whose purpose here is to right great wrongs, to "correct the record" or to discuss pet theories. Our shared goal here is only to summarize what reliable sources say about a topic. There are many other websites that allow advocacy, and I have personally contributed to several of them. On Wikipedia, my role is a neutral encyclopedist. If you are willing to assume that role as well, we can certainly cooperate and collaborate. That is my precondition. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Concise

In future posts and questions please be concise. Please read Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. This would be more considerate of other users time. Pass a Method talk 09:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Also read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum Pass a Method talk 09:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be more concise in the future.

My goal is to express my position and receive information of whether reliable sources similar to that exist. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent posts at the Science Reference Desk ,,,

... are being discussed at the Reference Desk talk page. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. That's kind of yourself. Ryanspir (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What are your motives?

Here to build an encyclopedia?

Yes. Ryanspir (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Anthonyhcole#Primary sources

I can't address that at the moment, Ryan. I've made too many commitments here lately. I've seen a number of editors for whom I have a lot of respect cite quackwatch; though I've never done it myself. Arbcom is no more fit to judge its reliability than you or me, and I've never looked carefully enough to form an opinion.

I spend my time here lately adjusting the language in health-related articles, so that claims about efficacy and safety match what the best available sources have to say. Usually, that's current professional guidelines, high quality, independent systematic reviews, textbooks, etc. However, if a topic hasn't been well-addressed in one of these, I'll reluctantly settle for the best "grey literature" I can find. Quackwatch seems to have a kind of a reputation for reliability, and I would at least consider citing them at some time in the future (once I've had a closer look at them), but I would always cite them in the text, rather that say what they say in "Wikipedia's voice". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, arbcom editors are similar to us and they are experienced. They have had consensus not to use quackwatch in an article they have discussed.

However, the arbcom's decision and comments are just a background for the issue, even if quackwatch would be a good quality primary source, we would still need to follow the strong consensus we have reached at WP:MEDRS that was not to use primary sources, especially if there are no secondary reliable sources that backs it up. I'm asking for the consensus to be uphold impartially. If some respected editors like what quackwatch says because it projects their views on cs, yet the source contradicts the strong consensus, I think they have to let the consensus to prevail. Ryanspir (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I just read your comment on the article talk page. It does sound like cs is working for you and that's awesome. Really. I have an ongoing health problem, and I'd love to encounter something that has that much effect on my condition.

I haven't looked at the literature surrounding cs, and I won't be because I've just got too much on at the moment. But I know most of the editors you're dealing with well, and all of them are people of integrity, just as I'm sure you are, who like you want our coverage to be accurate and unbiased and conform to our policies.

I've just read This. After a longish discussion with community members, ArbCom agreed that QuackWatch may be used as a reliable source. Like others you've spoken with, QuackWatch appears to me to be a secondary, not a primary source. It evaluates and contextualises primary research. That makes it secondary not primary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, for quackwatch

passed 9-0 at 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[edit]Using online and self-published sources4)Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources, a guideline, warns against use of sources whose content is controlled by their owner - "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication."

quackwatch 2

Quackwatch states that there are no salaried employees, and a total cost of operating all of Quackwatch's sites is approximately $7,000 per year. It is funded mainly by small individual donations, commissions from sales on other sites to which they refer, profits from the sale of publications, and self-funding by Barrett. Stated income is also derived from usage of sponsored links, includingAmazon.com,ConsumerLab.com, HealthGrades, Inc, andNetflix.[2][edit]Site contentThe Quackwatch website contains many essays and white papers, intended for the non-specialist consumer, written by Barrett and other writers. The articles discuss health-related products, treatments, enterprises, and providers that Quackwatch deems to be misleading,"...investigating questionable claims, answering inquiries about products and services, advising quackery victims, distributing reliable publications, debunking pseudoscientific claims, reporting illegal marketing, improving the quality of health information on the internet, assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits, and attacking misleading advertising on the internet."[2]Quackwatch states that there are no salaried employees, and a total cost of operating all of Quackwatch's sites is approximately $7,000 per year. It is funded mainly by small individual donations, commissions from sales on other sites to which they refer, profits from the sale of publications, and self-funding by Barrett. Stated income is also derived from usage of sponsored links, including

April 2013

Colloidal Silver section:

I haven't seen such a consensus. I haven't hatted anyone comments. There were many posts that didn't propose any specific changes to the article and they weren't hatted. It would be very unusual that you single out this my specific post. Could you be acting impartial please?

I'll disengage from making any further changes to the hatted section with no relation to whether you will agree with my proposal. My proposal is that you will unhat my comments, because they were made in Good Faith and because they are constructive to the improvement of the article. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to leave the section hatted. I do believe that you made your comments in good faith, and by that I mean that you meant them in a way to improve the article content. However, it often happens that editors do things in good faith that are against Wikipedia's rules and so must be undone. This is such a case. As noted, several editors including two admins found them to be in violation of WP:TPG and so even though the comments were made in good faith the correct thing to do per that Wikipedia guideline is to remove them from view. Although I believe you mean well in asking me to undo the hatting, it would not be correct per Wikipedia guideline for me to do as you ask, so I will leave the section hatted. If you have further questions you should ask TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) and Vsmith (talk · contribs) for any further explanation of the application of WP:TPG to this situation. Zad68 17:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

:). Ok, I'll try to ask TenOfAllTrades. Ryanspir (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think your frustration reflects an incomplete understanding of WP. I have a lot of personal experience that is relevant to our articles, but it has absolutely no place here. Reliable sources are what we use to build the encyclopedia, and our personal experiences are the farthest thing from reliable sourcing we could get. The fact that you wish for the posts to be un-hatted indicates to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of our policies and intent. I am stating this strongly, but without passion, to try to convey how important this is: when it comes to editing Wikipedia, your own personal experience should take a back seat to what you can find in reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Scray, I agree with you. The magic word here is "should". We are not living in an ideal world. I wasn't born with an idea about cs. I have tried it a few years ago. Prior to it, my opinion was the same as yours, Zad's, Vsmith's, Alexrbn`s, Doc James's and other editors who didn't try it. I remember vividly that in the past I used to think that all alt med is crap, quack and it was including cs. If at that time I would edit an article about cs, I would act in the same way as the above mentioned editors. That is why I find it easy for myself to understand their motives. None of them spent any time adding information from PUBMED positive articles about cs, but they have invested their time in finding sources that discredit cs. Due to my observation, almost all people who actually try cs change their opinion about it. That is why I'm of opinion, that if the above mentioned editors will try it, they are highly likely get a shift in their worldview regarding it. They will find it difficult to write "has no effect for any condition", if they observed an actual effect on one of their conditions. Ryanspir (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"We're not living in an ideal world" is a poor position from which to make a case. My prior post could be a reply to your most recent one, so I think I've said all that I need to say. -- Scray (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hatting

Could you please reply on my talk page?

a) I have posted the comment not as a personal testimony per-se, but per WP:BIAS that is recognized by the Wikipedia. I have posted in a Good Faith without a purpose of having discussion upon it, so NOTFORUM doesn't apply here. I have posted in order to induce positive improvement of the article.

b) There were many comments of people without any specific proposition to change the article, none of them were hatted. It would be highly unusual for impartial observer to understand, why that specific post is being hatted.

Please reconsider hatting based on the raised points, thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Above text copied from User talk:TenOfAllTrades, to avoid fragmenting the discussion while complying with your request that I reply on your talk page. Please reply here if necessary; I have added this talk page to my watchlist.

Re: (a). If you prefer, you can consider some other portion of WP:NOT cited (or, for that matter, WP:TPG). If you posted merely for the purpose of trying to persuade the rest of us of the importance and correctness of your personal experience and anecdotes, the applicable section would be WP:NOTSOAPBOX. If you just wanted to make the announcement to get it off your chest, it's WP:NOTBLOG. Citing WP:BIAS (an essay that expresses an opinion about Wikipedia philosophy, please note, and not a Wikipedia policy) in defence of your anecdotes about fringe medical interventions is a non-starter.

Re: (b). I have examined the talk page archives going back to the beginning of February—that's 35 separate talk page sections (16 of which you created). Aside from sections created by you, not one was started with a statement or declaration unrelated to either specific edits or specific sources. While there are almost certainly off-topic remarks in some of the other threads, there's nothing to be gained to giving you a free hand to start an entirely off-topic thread.

No, I am not going to un-hat your remarks. Your personal endorsement of colloidal silver has nothing whatsoever to do with improving the article and does not belong on its talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BIAS Is representing reality by inclusion of pure statistical information. An example, consider a Neo-Nazi who didn't participate in the events would write an article about pogroms in Ukraine. How that article would look like? Let's say a person who was an actual victim in the pogrom would suggest on changes. Of course worldview of the editor plays role in how the article will look like.

At least half of the posts on the talk page were not proposing specific changes to the article. I think it's not important if they were in the beginning of the sections or not, I guess if I would write it not in a new section, you would likely to hat it anyway, right?

Thank you and welcome to my talk page. We certainly can have it here. Ryanspir (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:BIAS is deeply flawed, and I decline the invitation to be sucked into a wide-ranging debate based on poorly-chosen, woefully inapt Nazi analogies. I can only advise you to cease trying to find a loophole that will allow to you use the article's talk page for your testimonials, endorsements, blogging, or anything else not clearly and directly related to editing the associated article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)