- 1 CFS Responses
- 2 Welcome to the cesspool
- 3 Jennifer Raab Page
- 4 Thank you for the 'polish'
- 5 Ebola dates
- 6 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 7 Formal notice
- 8 Disambiguation link notification for June 18
- 9 September 2016
- 10 Disambiguation link notification for September 30
- 11 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 12 March 2017
In case you weren't aware, several of the topics that you've responded to recently around the topic of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are over a year old and, more importantly, in many cases you're responding to a banned user (Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs)) who can inherently never reply to the topic. I haven't really gone over your posts in detail, so it's entirely possible that it makes sense to respond to these topics even given the above points, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware. —RobinHood70 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the cesspool
Hi JustinReilly, welcome to the cesspool that is editing the CFS articles. It has been relatively peacefully lately but in the past there have been some major struggles. During an earlier comment I suspect you were referring to this: WP:IGNORE (Ignore all rules), "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Here is an essay (ie someone's opinion) on how to interpret this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense - I can't offer much advice on that, the WP:RULES at Wikipedia are somewhat inconsistent when taken too literally. As there is room for selective interpretation, the rules are often applied arbitrarily, leading to arguments.
Wikipedia claims the rules are defined by what the "majority of editors" believe should be, and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but in practice it is usually most aggressive editors most familiar with the rules who get their own way in such situations. Some people in the past have come to Wikipedia and even proposed or implied that all mention of psychological factors in CFS should be removed completely. This simply isn't going to happen under the current scientific and political climate. Neither has been the reinstatement of a separate article for ME, but I believe one day this will change. Personally I have no issue with genuine well-conducted research into psychological and social aspects of illness that do not starve funding for more important biological research, but that's the catch, standards in research of the former in CFS appear to be disgracefully low and attached to ideological baggage and often riddled with flaws.
Yes, the claims about abnormal illness beliefs and neuroticism in CFS are indeed questionable, but I generally agree with what RobinHood70 said on the issue. In some ways I'm an "inclusionist", for example I would rather the issue of neuroticism be dealt with instead of being excluded. Without it the minds of readers, especially those sympathic to dubious psychosomatic hypotheses/interpretations, may remain uninformed and conclude this article fails to mention the "truth that patients don't want to hear". With the current text however (which could be improved), they are informed that a systematic review into the issue found that levels of neuroticism in CFS is similar to that found in patients of chronic (organic) diseases and can be explained by subset of patients with comorbid depression. In other words, despite the psychobabble, neuroticism isn't really specific to CFS nor a major factor in CFS. It was a major struggle for several editors to include such a caveat in the article!
Jennifer Raab Page
Hi there - saw you made some nice improvements to the Jennifer Raab page a couple weeks ago. Another user has since added some contentious content as well as external links, including a blog link, which I don't believe belong in that section. Would you mind having a look? I value your opinion on this. Thanks. NinaSpezz (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the 'polish'
CFS @Doctor Patient relations You recently edited the CFS page to more closely reflect the spirit of the comment by Charles Shepherd. Did you notice that audio file attached to eh BBC page in which Wesley himself said 'it was a tiny minority of patients'? That omission has been annoying me for some time! I may get around to that once I finish work on treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 09:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Justito we keep that date as per latest official reports. The us case is not yet in a official global report. Please stick to the article line as per all previous edits.. regards Brian.BrianGroen (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
In fact the whole US section should come out here till it is an oficail global report i.e OCHA , CDC WHO or goverments with same dated report for all, but due to tremendous interest i left it on for now... Kind Regards BrianBrianGroen (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
- You have got to be kidding me that you would even mention the possibility of sanctions, much less denominate it a "formal notice."JustinReilly (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walden School (New York City), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Diamond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I'm 4TheWynne. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Fast 8, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mark Sourian, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Universal and The Ring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Joseph Mercola. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)