User talk:Literaturegeek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, firstly I must apologise as I am new to Wikipedia and don’t really know what I’m doing.

But basically I am just trying to get updated safety information onto the Ciprofloxacin page. The information is from the FDA 2016 warning. But it keeps getting edited out. I would have thought this was reliable information that belongs on the page?

As I say. I don’t really know what I’m doing and not really sure how to reference things properly. Can you help? Wiki woms (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I have probably come across like I am trying to argue with Doc James. This is not the case, I’m just getting frustrated with it

I’m sure he has good intentions, but he just seems to dismiss the recent FDA warnings Wiki woms (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The best help I can give you is to point you in the direction of the following pages: WP:MEDRS, WP:RS
To reference things properly, here are the templates: Template:Cite_web, Template:Cite_journal and Template:Cite_book and you place the templates between <ref> and </ref>
I think Doc James felt the information was being repeated unnecessarily in multiple sections of the article. Usually the same information should be mentioned once in the article body and if it is important, then briefly mentioned in the summary section at the beginning of an article. Does this help? There is also a tool where you can put in, for example, the ID of a book or medical paper and the tool autogenerates the reference template all filled out for you - it can make editing much easier. I think your edits are good, especially considering you are a newcomer to Wikipedia and it is good to see an enthusiastic newcomer to Wikipedia. I will try and help you but I just do not have a huge amount of time at the moment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Altering comments[edit]

Please do not alter your Talk page contributions after they have been responded to; it makes an already confusing thread even worse. See WP:REDACT. Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, sorry about that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Faith healing RFC[edit]

Please be mindful of WP:TPNO, especially in discussions about pseudoscience. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  • While I believe that if Wikipedia was written with your POV, it would be a better place. Same goes for Kingofaces43. Still I am finding your comments to be troubling. Why you posted this comment? Such comments are described as civil POV pushing, and you are posting false accusations of threats and harassment and such comments distracts from the content dispute and leads people to write a complaint about you or at least prefer hostility against you. Kingofaces43 was just saying[1] something that you have been already told by one more editor.[2] Most editors supported the RfC because they believe in continuing the standards, if you really believe that we need to limit our content addition with what most of the sources prefer then we will require a change in policy. Right now it is dubious and depends upon how strong the argument has been made or the flaws with the information itself, even if it has been supported by handful of reliable sources. Maybe you should really take some time to analyze the most important parts of your comments and try thinking of some other way to get this label (pseudoscience) removed not only from this but also other articles. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
No, Kingsofaces kept warning me of discretionary sanctions (which implies the threat of an ArbCom block) being in place when the consensus was that they cannot be in place until the RFC result has concluded with a specific result. Anyway, water under the bridge. I don't want the pseudoscience label removed from other articles, you are casting aspirations.
Having studied the arguments and how people have voted, I believe the way forward is to summarise what the sources say, some say pseudoscience, others say only certain forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. This can be resolved by following NPOV. We all want the dangerous charlatan faith healers who prey on the weak with fraud and deception and the equally dangerous extremist Christian quacks who directly or indirectly encourage people to reject or delay mainstream medical care to be heavily criticised in the article. I don't think there is one person on that article that disagrees. And most, I speculate, would accept a compromise of labelling, per sources, that such people or those who do present a scientific veneer to their faith healing are pseudoscientific.
The problem is labelling traditional praying, whilst embracing mainstream science and medical care, for a sick relative as pseudoscience when there are two or perhaps three sources that state that not all forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. We can't ignore sources! Most dictionary sources and our own article describe faith healing as any prayer for healing, which means we are stating about a billion people's religious belief is pseudoscience. We just don't have enough clear cut sourcing to say that. The sourcing that says pseudoscience seems to describe dangerous quack anti-science faith healing and not the dictionary definition of tradition prayer for healing type faith healing. I just want people to be sensible and follow NPOV in this dispute and not abuse what sources say and go way beyond the sources.
I do not want pseudoscience description to be withheld from the article because that would be going against what many editors want. Even several of the support votes say follow the sources, etc., which would include a few sources that say not all forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. I am not the big POV pusher you think I am. If people were saying let's summarise the sources fairly and acknowledge the controversy, I wouldn't be doing all the posting that I have been doing.
One of your sources actually says that faith healing is a paranormal belief that is based on fraud and deception but separates it from pseudoscience which implies to me it is saying it is not a pseudoscience but rather fraudulent, but you misrepresented your source, I believe in good faith. Obviously it is still very negative description of faith healing, but it just annoys me when things are misrepresented. Read the paragraph carefully, please. If we can discuss and accept what sources say, we can find a solution that makes everyone happy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Literaturegeek, you seem rather confused about the whole situation. First, the DS are in effect, and the RfC has no bearing on whether that is the case or not. The current WP:CONSENSUS even at the talk page is that they are in effect because even though multiple editors don't like that, the conversation and subject material is still about pseudoscience. The reason why you were alerted to the DS was badgering editors on the talk page, and I reminded you about the DS again because of blugeoning behavior. As Raymond pointed out above, the claims of harassment, etc. are highly inappropriate and WP:ASPERSIONS, and I do suggest striking that comment at the RfC.
Behavior issues mixed with content get a bit trickier to deal with, but that's why the pseudoscience/fringe topic went to ArbCom. It's extremely common to have people use special pleading arguments that something isn't pseudoscience/fringe (pseudoskepticism, contrarianism, etc.) that you have been furthering in addition to having behavior issues like I mentioned above. It doesn't matter that you're fine with direct fraud cases being pseudoscience when you're actively portraying other sourced pseudoscientific areas as not. You are getting on thinner and thinner ice with your behavior, so the DS reminders so far have been to remind you that you are expected to be on better behavior in this topic. There should be nothing offensive about that. I usually just assume good-faith and assume people just aren't familiar with pseudoscience when they stumble over things like you have, but you've reached the point awhile ago that you really need to slow down. You've been missing key details as well as warnings from other editors to the point you're misrepresenting comments from others.
I assume you haven't realized it yet, but your actions so far have more or less matched the stereotypical editor that enters into fringe topics only to get sanctioned for things like you've exactly been doing. The warnings so far have been to prevent that, so please slow down and reflect on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a note since I'm not sure how familiar you are with DS alerts based on previous conversations. You are free to delete the notice once notified as you did, but "awareness" does not expire until 12 months after regardless of removal. I do suggest reading that link for what alerts are actually intended to do. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Kingofaces, you are right that I have posted too much and need to slow down on my comments, and I regret that anyone, including you, is offended by me. I do not come onto Wikipedia to offend people. It is not a typical fringe topic because there is a split in the views of Wikipedia community and a split in what the sources say. Usually I am arguing against FRINGE theories, search my username on the fringe noticeboard. I am not pleading or advocating on a personal level, because I don't even practice faith healing, I embrace mainstream medical care. I am just hoping for an NPOV summary of the available sources. Everybody disagreed with you and the consensus was firmly against your view that discretionary sanctions are in effect, and it was an administrator who voiced an opinion that you were abusing this process by threatening me, which was why I suggested you were harassing me by threatening me. Maybe they are all wrong, one admin did agree with you that DS might apply and I should err on the side of caution. Maybe I should again heed that advice and like you say, slow down. However, you reject any published opinion that only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, so for you to come here and accuse me of POV pushing is just not fair, you should read WP:KETTLE. Yes, I know how it works, I am not a newbie... Perhaps a flaw is I am attracted to the controversial articles and the heated debates, most recently the RfC on medical videos on WP:MED because they are more challenging and enjoyable to partake in. Other editors obviously don't enjoy such debates and don't like disagreements, debates and mild drama.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
As for striking, you have tried to belittle me by accusing me of being a fringe pseudoscience pusher even though there are sources that agree that not all forms are pseudoscience. So for striking, well you will have to agree to strike some of the stuff you have fired my way too. Some of your criticisms of my actions I accept and have taken on board, but others are just not fair or even acceptable. I bet you if I shared the same POV as you you would have a different attitude and would be behaving differently towards me. I do wonder how much of this is about you just don't like my advocating for NPOV of the differences of opinions amongst sources. If you want to resolve our difference, I am open to that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"It doesn't matter that you're fine with direct fraud cases being pseudoscience when you're actively portraying other sourced pseudoscientific areas as not." I am okay with sourcing being used, per NPOV, that states faith healing is a pseudoscience, so long as other sourcing is incorporated that suggests that this is not the case and that only certain forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. You are assuming that I am wanting to bludgeon my way over majority opinion of the RfC when I simply am not. Maybe we both view each other as wanting to cherrypicking sources? I want to have a discussion, either apply MEDRS restrict ourselves to the recent 2013 source or else if we use old sources, to do so neutrally which includes differing opinions amongst those sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

When we are talking about "discretionary sanctions", "ArbCom", you really have a better experience than me as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Literaturegeek. Still you need to understand that the alert of discretionary sanctions about pseudoscience was justified, maybe we have no consensus to add the template on Talk:Faith healing, but it covers the subject and users can be alerted on their talk pages. I think that leaving a template using {{subst:alert|cam}} was one more option, but it could be argued if faith healing is really as much of a "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" like many others. You should not be feeling offended by the accusations of POV pushing that have been made against you, because it is a very common reaction from editors and it could be any other subject, not just faith healing. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Aye, but I was never sanctioned and never subject of discretionary sanctions. I was 'advised' by ArbCom not to edit war. You might know more about ArbCom with the massive POV pushing sock farm and ArbCom block, per your block log, lol.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't talked about sanctions, but the proceedings of Arbcom, their installed regulations and that the DS template was not misused when it was posted in form of alert on this talk page. I never had a "ArbCom block", you can tell me though if you found one. As for my block log, "successful appeal" indicates that both blocks were false. I had expected you better know that socks are never unblocked unless the block is false. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text for faith healing article[edit]

@Kingofaces43: @Raymond3023: I am a bit frustrated being accused of POV pushing, so I am instead posting this to clarify where my real thoughts are at this point. Kingofaces43 made a sensible argument that MEDRS should not apply, at least not strictly, because faith healing is a fringe topic and not subject to routine research and review. Therefore, older sources should be used. Below is what I regard as NPOV summary of the available sources. I do not believe the below text will be perfectly acceptable to either side of the debate:

Faith healing is a scientifically unproven treatment and cures attributed to it are considered to be scientifically suspect; determining whether it can be proven that a person was sick and has been cured in the first instance or whether spontaneous remission has occurred may offer better explanations. There are, in fact, many examples of faith healing fraud and deception. Alleged cures from faith healing are considered to be paranormal phenomena, however, the religious beliefs and practices associated with faith healing are not generally considered to be pseudoscientific because they do not usually have any pretensions of science.[1] However, other authors disagree and have asserted faith healing is a clear cut form of pseudoscience.[2][3] Another expert stated that only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism.[4] Another author described faith healing as a form of paranormal belief that is based on fraud and deception.[5] Faith healing has been described as probably the most dangerous type of pseudoscience because it can cause people to reject mainstream medical care with increased pain and suffering and an earlier death being real potential consequences.[6]

If the consensus were to apply WP:MEDRS '5 year rule source' then all we can say is:

Only certain forms of faith healing are regarded as pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism.[4]

So there you have it. Thoughts and comments are welcome. :-) Keep smiling folks. Wikipedia is about debate, fun and stimulating the mind.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Martin, Michael (1994). "Pseudoscience, the Paranormal, and Science Education" (PDF). Science & Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers (3): 357–371. Retrieved 30 March 2018. 
  2. ^ Zerbe, Michael J. (28 February 2007). Composition and the Rhetoric of Science: Engaging the Dominant Discourse. Southern Illinois University. p. 86. ISBN 978-0809327409. 
  3. ^ Pitt, Joseph C.; Pera, Marcello (6 December 2012). Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 96. ISBN 978-9401081818. 
  4. ^ a b Leonard,, Bill; Crainshaw, Jill Y. (2013). Encyclopedia of Religious Controversies in the United States: A - L., (2nd ed.). United States of America: ABC-CLIO LLC. p. 625. ISBN 978-1-59884-867-0. 
  5. ^ Gilbert, John (2006). Science Education: Major Themes in Education. Routledge. p. 16. ISBN 978-0415342261. 
  6. ^ Cogan, Robert (28 March 1998). Critical Thinking: Step by Step. University Press of America. p. 217. ISBN 978-0761810674. 
Once the RfC is closed, we can add this type of content, but where? Lead or body? What will be in lead? There are still some questions that needs answer. Also the talk page has too many sections now that it will be difficult to adhere to RfC results. I think others will edit war over the content. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, we don't know for sure what the closing admin's summary of thoughts will be. It is a very minority (arguably fringe) academic opinion that faith healing is a pseudoscience (e.g., there are hundreds even thousands of refs that say homeopathy is a pseudoscience but it is not so for faith healing), which was a major reason I voted oppose for inclusion, but if RfC says include, then a paragraph like what I wrote above I believe should go in the body. Per WP:NPOV, and because of WP:WEIGHT only maybe a sentence or maybe 2 at most in the lead, I suggest. We can discuss the nuanced details of course after the RfC. Edit wars will be less likely if NPOV is adhered to. What I wrote above, although very negative towards faith healing, nevertheless covers the academic nuanced differences of opinions and complies with NPOV. Editors will need to find other sources to edit war with, but they don't exist so don't think it will be a problem. Everything about faith healing and pseudoscience has already been brought to the RfC.
My only real concern is kingofaces43 because I got the impression, which might be wrong, that he doesn't accept there are academic differences of thought on this issue. I for one don't want to edit war or end up involved in another RfC this time about interpreting sources. Hopefully we can all be reasonable and grown up. Anyway, I wanted to let you both know where my thoughts are should the RfC indeed close with a recommendation of include sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I've given up contributing to this topic largely because of Literaturegeek's Wp:BLUDGEONing of the RfC page (likely paving the way to a topic ban). But I am forced to say that this bogus invocation of the WP:MEDRS 5 year guidance on medical reviews is one of the worst misuses of that rule I've seen - in a competitive field! Alexbrn (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the party Alexbrn. Good to see you. I think you should reread this sentence I wrote at start of this section: Kingofaces43 made a sensible argument that MEDRS should not apply, at least not strictly, because faith healing is a fringe topic and not subject to routine research and review. You have misinterpreted the whole section. I was saying MEDRS 5 year sourcing should NOT be applied. I think you jumped to the wrong conclusion. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Without providing diffs of your statements you are either going to make it difficult or just lead people to blindly agree with your foes here. Though your invocation of MEDRS for this label (pseudoscience) is visible to everyone here. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay Raymond. The 2nd and 3rd sentences of this diff and then I added about MEDRS in this diff and what I meant by applying MEDRS was if the closing admin or consensus of the community decided to apply MEDRS, it was a hypothetical. I thought I had explained at the start, of this talk subsection, that kingofaces43 had persuaded me that we should allow use of older sources because it is a fringe research area. I apologise for the confusion. I see people as fellow editors, I don't like to view people on here as foes, but I know what you meant, I think. :-P Alex, I am trying to compromise and back away from bludgeoning behaviour at the RfC. I have heard the criticism and taken it on board.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I have edited for clarity.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
What about [3][4]? Confusion probably started from there. Faith healing is an old practice, we don't have to invoke WP:MEDRS when we are categorizing it, but efficacy and researches would require adherence WP:MEDRS but only if newer sources (under five years) are available. You can consider these editors as foes, given you have been combative in your comments, but if you want to treat them as fellow editors then you will also need to heed their advice, which may require you to give up your current stance on faith healing. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but kingofaces then posted this comment re. sourcing fringe topics and I realised I was wrong which contributed to me backtracking and changing my approach to this subject somewhat.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban[edit]

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I don't want you to have to go digging to look for this, so ...

Okay, fair enough. Tic disorders is not an area that I have researched in detail so I never followed those DSM changes. I obviously spoke out of turn and my knowledge area. My gut did warn me about this, I ignored my gut. It does seem you are right about the suffer bit. I apologise.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated, Literturegeek, and thank you from the bottom of my heart. Something similar was said the first time I sought help as a newbie for the TS article, and I realized there was no one on Wikipedia who could help me improve a dismal article, so I embarked alone. Twelve years later, that memory still pushes buttons, so I apologize for reacting so strongly and inappropriately to your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks Sandy, I replied here in this diff.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I hope I don't use those words too often in here :) Thanks again, and sorry again :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Some advice regarding the faith healing RFC[edit]

So, I just noticed that you have over 60 signed comments on the faith healing talk page regarding the RFC and related discussions, and a majority of the past 100 edits on that page were made by you (and over 100 of the last 250 edits, and over 150 of the last 500 edits, and you get the picture). I think it might be a good idea to calm down a bit, stop editing that talk page, and let the process go forward. At this point, I can't imagine that anything else you say could convince someone who hasn't already been convinced by what you've said so far. That RFC is already a long rambling mess, and adding anything else to it will only make life more difficult for whoever has to close it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I have reached that same conclusion. I do a lot of typo fixes explaining the edits, but more than 60 signed comments is far too much, you are right.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry to bug you about this. Have a good one. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It's okay, thanks, you have a good one too RRC. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irritable bowel syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Translocation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


If you want to work, then focus on the work. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Right jyt, yes I want to work and I want to reach a consensus where text is included but limitations of the evidence is included to avoid POV pushing, and then I want to spend time with some family who are visiting from London. I don’t think there is consensus to exclude it entirely like what Zephyr is keen to do.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to my world[edit]

So what is going at Zolpidem, is sadly very common. There are people who abuse the openness of WP to come here and advocate like crazy for things.

Passion is a double-edged sword --it drives people to contribute, but it can drive people right over the policies and guidelines and to just bludgeon the talk page to get what they want.

MEDRS actually developed because our articles on autism were a mess -- we had people shilling things, and desperate, desperate parents grasping at straws, all hammering to drive crap into WP based on the latest primary source, or some old primary source that somebody "re-discovered", or some junk source from popular media or a blog. Working on health content used to be as bad as working on video games. But the folks back then pulled together and after a lot of talk and discussion, put MEDRS together and it has earned broad and deep consensus, for good reason. It makes pretty quick work of most advocacy, be that some company shilling some drug, or somebody who comes here obsessed with some sort of side effect and just hammers to try to get the page to fit with their very impassioned notions.

In these cases, it is all the more important to stick to MEDRS and the other policy and guidelines. We don't bend to accommodate the obsessions of who ever happens to show up.

If people refuse to engage with the policies and guidelines, they end up topic banned or they get sick of beating their head against the wall and leave.

This is not at all uncommon, unfortunately. I am not sure you have encountered this personally before in WP. I appreciate the kindness you are showing; that is very much in the spirit of what we do here. But we need to remain grounded on what we do here, and how we do it.... Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It just seems we might be hitting a brick wall with how to apply policies and guidelines in this disagreement. Maybe reliable sources noticeboard or even request for comments is the way to go if we can’t reach consensus?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)