User talk:Pengortm

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

Apolipoprotein E[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to the apolipoprotein E article and for your comments in Talk:Apolipoprotein E. One minor request however is especially when you delete material, please include a short edit sumary. It could be as short as "see talk" if you leave an explanation on the talk page. Otherwise, please carry on. I think you are doing a great job! Cheers. Boghog (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That is stupid calling it misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soaringbear (talkcontribs) 04:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg 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 Insert-signature.png 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi. In the article dopamine receptor D4, you claimed that there were hundreds of other studies linking this receptor gene to sexual behavior in humans. Why not link multiple studies as references in one sentence, or even a metastudy if there is one? Please clarify what you mean by this not being validated enough. Thanks. ~AH1 (discuss!) 22:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


This edit [1] is strange in my opinion. It removes a reference to an essay written about the movie by a scientist featured in the movie, and in its place puts a reference which doesn't ever mention the movie. I stated as much in my edit summary.

Have you seen the movie? What makes you think that Tierney's book has anything to do with the content? I think you should read the article I referenced, and then restore my edits. As you'll see, it is written by an anthropologist who, while agreeing with Dreger on Tierney, appreciates the importance of the movie. Dragging Tierney and Dreger into the description of this movie does a further disservice to the Yanomami, and is uncalled for. (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello-- I have watched the movie, read the peer-reviewed article which is referenced (and has been a part of the wikipedia article for sometime now) and read the essay you added as well. The movie is certainly more than Tierney's book--but I think whatever position one has on the controversy, it is quite clear that Tierney's work was seminal to this continuing controversy. For example see: The allegations in the movie extend Tierney's claims a bit, but are basically the same old (discredited) claims. This is well documented in the peer-reviewed work of Dreger. I think the essay you suggest could be effectively integrated into the article, but does not require such a big change and deletion of the previous information. Since I didn't have time to re-write the article I decided it was best to revert it first (retaining the helpful reference you added to the award the movie won). The disservice I am doing to the Yanomami by trying to nip fallacious information in the bud is not clear to me. I'm sure we can better wiki this and improve it together. Pengortm (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked back over your revisions and agree that I was remiss in simply deleting most of them. I've put much of it back in. Pengortm (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

HRM Article Links[edit]

Hey, I'm sorry though I think I explained why I did it in the summary. Anyway, if you check the links they are NOT related to the article.

  • [2]: This link goes to a "spammy" site full of links related to science, but still with no clear information;
  • [3]: The second link goes to a celebrity-themed blog.

Nuno Agostinho(Say It!) 00:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply posted on the article talk pagePengortm (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sex at Dawn[edit]

Hi, Thanks for your input to the Sex at Dawn article. The reason that I had reverted your edit was because you updated the intro without any corresponding changes to the body of the article. The intro should reflect what is in the article. So, I'd be grateful if you could cite the third academic article in the article body. It will improve the article, and support the claim in the intro (which at the moment is unspported by a verifiable third party source). Please let me know if you have any questions. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Good point. I believe the sentence in question in the intro does include references to the three scholarly articles. I'll try to find time to do the corresponding updates to the body text soon. Pengortm (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thanks for keeping a cool head and seeking dispute resolution rather than edit warring at Saybrook University. KeithbobTalk 16:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

I've made the request here. I think it will be granted but it' a subjective judgement on the part of the Administrator who evaluates the request so we'll see. It may take a day or two for the request to be reviewed so be patient and I suggest that you stay away from the article in the meantime. Let me know if you have any questions or need further assistance. Best, -- KeithbobTalk 17:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Ryan[edit]

I'm concerned about your edits on his page and Sex at Dawn. It's clear that the guy's academic credentials are shoddy (though I doubt that the admissions standards of the University of Missouri -- the alma mater of the guy trashing him -- are anything to write home about either). But that doesn't mean his thesis is incorrect. You appear to be devoted to emphasizing Ryan's shoddy resume, and the most critical reviews of the book. This is tendentious editing. Steeletrap (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I welcome corrections or additions based in reliable sources. From what I can tell the scientists with relevant expertise have been the most critical of his book--but perhaps I've missed something or misinterpreted. --Pengortm (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please name one academic review of his book by a "scientist" other than the articles by the UMissouri anthropologist. Steeletrap (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
As stated below the summary: "according to Ryan, the book was rejected by Oxford University Press after 2 of 3 peer reviews by primatologists were negative during the publisher's internal peer review process". Also, it is worth noting that Ellsworth's two reviews were published in a Peer Reviewed publication in a journal specifically oriented towards these types of issues. Further David Barash, an evolutionary biologist is also cited below the summary statement. While I had a substantial role in some of these edits, I am certainly not the only contributor and these were worked together in a collaborative wikipedia fashion. If you have further discussion on these articles, I think it might be more productive to have the discussion on those articles talk pages so other editors might chime in more easily.--Pengortm (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I do monitor the talk page of the Ryan and Sex at Dawn articles, so will see your comments there very quickly. Looking forward to fruitful dialogue and further improvements to the article. I appreciate your edits to Saybrook's page and agree that 'Rankings' is a better title for that section.--Pengortm (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Saybrook is a shit school. But so are a lot of American institutions of higher learning. Steeletrap (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I'd like to say thanks for the barnstar, and also for your generally helpful and constructive attitude. Look forward to continuing to work with you. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


The purpose is to inform the reader that it was that way in the original. You can't inform the reader if he/she already understands that, which is the case for the cranberry excerpt from 1672; the "sics" just detract from the aesthetics of the passage. Of course I'm sure you agree a line has to be drawn; you wouldn't quote Chaucer's The Night's Tale, Part I as

Whilom [sic], as olde [sic] stories tellen [sic] us, Ther [sic] was a duc [sic] that highte [sic] Theseus;

I think the cranberry passage falls on the side of the line where you don't need sic. Just a thought.HowardJWilk (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Saybrook University[edit]

Hi. Good catch. The IP that did that belongs to TCS Education System, and it has removed information from another article as well. I've templated it with the COI advisory and {{uw-delete2}} for both articles, and will watch their contributions. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your help desk question[edit]

I have attempted a response.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Rolfing, editing regarding "Rolfing is essentially identical to Structural Integration."[edit]

Wanted to discuss the suggested edits I had. My first edit was to change: "Rolfing is essentially identical to Structural Integration" to "Rolfing is the best-known brand of Structural Integration". You noted that the current source, which is a reliable source, states this, and asked for a different source to change it.

My second attempt noted that Rolfing is a service mark in the first sentence (referenced by the US Patent and Trademark page) and changed the sentence in question to "Rolfing is the more publicly known brand of Structural Integration and is essentially identical." I used one of the sources already referred to in the article (Myers), which states: "In the inevitable fractures and resultant legal battles which followed Dr. Rolf's death, the terms ‘Rolfing®’ and ‘Rolfer®’ became registered service marks of the Rolf Institute, which is now one of perhaps a dozen schools of Structural Integration. Therefore, ‘Structural Integration’, Dr. Rolf's original name for her work, is becoming the generic designation for this type of manipulative approach. The word ‘rolfing’—a nickname for her work which came from her time in the Esalen Institute in California, and a name she herself disliked and only reluctantly accepted—remains, for the time being, the more publicly known term for this type of work."

While it is true to say that Rolfing is essentially identical to Structural Integration as noted in the Sherman source, more needs to be stated to describe the full relationship between the two. You could say that Iyengar yoga is identical to yoga and Kleenex is identical to facial tissue, and while true, these statements leave something out: yoga is the umbrella term and Iyengar is a subset; facial tissue is a product and Kleenex is a brand name.

I'd like to know if you have other suggestions for how to convey this information. Perhaps the description of Rolfing being a service mark isn't relevant, but the fact that Rolfing is considered synonymous with Structural Integration is because it was the first and has the most name recognition, not because they are one and the same thing. After further consideration, I believe that my second attempt captures and documents this well.


Boser,A (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sri Chinmoy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , university lecture in: ''The Oneness of the Eastern Heart and the Western Mind, Part 1'']. Agni Press, 2003.</ref> According to the team's website, members of the Sri Chinmoy Marathon Team
  • first1=Himalayan|title=A Spiritual Powerhouse Powerlifts 7,063 Pounds - Magazine Web Edition > December 1987 - Publications - Hinduism Today Magazine|url=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Pengortm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

5-HTTLPR edit from 2015 - Use of personal pronouns[edit] Use of personal pronouns from the author's stance (whether supported by empirical research or not) is inappropriate for the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Refer to
Personally, I have no issue with the information, but it is written in a manner incongruent with the nature of Wikipedia.
Thor214 (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I come across as rude above, and it is not my intent. I wrote it in a hurry and did not edit myself for a tone appropriate for reasonable discourse.
Thor214 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)