User talk:RetroS1mone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Original founding directors of ALRA.

You claim: - "I don't think a school prospectus is a reliable source." How so? Surely a school knows who its Board of Directors is? Not only is it a direct source but by law (in the UK) the information MUST BE CORRECT. To name directors who are not in such a position is a criminal offense under the Company (Disclosures) Act (1985/6 revision and 2002 revision) which also requires the propectus includes the company ID number and the VAT number. As such it is a legal document.

Disclosure of names of directors 8.—(1) Where a company’s business letter includes the name of any director of that company, other than in the text or as a signatory, the letter must disclose the name of every director of that company. (2) In paragraph (1), “name” has the following meanings— (a)in the case of a director who is an individual, “name” has the meaning given in section 163(2) of the Act; and (b)in the case of a director who is a body corporate or a firm that is a legal person under the law by which it is governed, “name” means corporate name or firm name.

Further particulars to appear in business letters, order forms and websites 7.—(1) Every company shall disclose the particulars set out in paragraph (2) on— (a)its business letters; (b)its order forms; and (c)its websites. (2) The particulars are— (a)the part of the United Kingdom in which the company is registered; (b)the company’s registered number; (c)the address of the company’s registered office; (d)in the case of a limited company exempt from the obligation to use the word “limited” as part of its registered name under section 30 of the Companies Act 1985(3) or article 40 of the Companies (Northern) Ireland Order 1986(4), the fact that it is a limited company; (e)in the case of a community interest company which is not a public company, the fact that it is a limited company; and (f)in the case of an investment company within the meaning of section 833 of the Act, the fact that it is such a company.

HOW MANY SOURCES USED IN WIKIPEDIA CARRY A JAIL SENTENCE IF FORGED OR INCORRECT?

If this reference is wrong simply look up the public record of companies (UK) and you can then have criminal charges brought against me. If you don't do this kindly stop rewriting history and distorting this article or I will ask that you be removed as an editor.Aimulti (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Aimulti, I have nominated your autobiography for deletion. You are too close to the subject for WP:COI and given your unique situation I think it is for the best. If you are really interested for future reference, read WP:PSTS. RetroS1mone (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/draft/ukdsi_9780110806570_en_1Aimulti (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Every item not referenced has been removed. My I ask what is your grudge against me. The AIDS debate? I guess so.Aimulti (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:RetroS1mone

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:User:RetroS1mone|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note this warning was to user Aimulti that started my talk page to attack me. RetroS1mone talk 05:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

You need to be made aware of this discussion at ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Mark Hanau, you will be blocked from editing. Aimulti (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC) (please stop removing content)WP:EDITWAR

Two more published references with visual scans (for verification purposes only) added both confirming Mark Hanau was Chairman of the Board. ISBN number for one provided.Aimulti (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We are in agreement. DELETE THIS SILLY BIO

Delete the Mark Hanau article. I am sick and tired of this pathetic game. Reference: - I never did anything in this bio and all references are pure fabrications. Sorrel Carson was not my mother, John Hanau was not my father and Sasha Hanau is not my daughter. I have never done a single thing, of note in my life, and played no role in ALRA. This article is without merit. DELETE IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. It is common knowledge that dissidents have no rights and have never done anything of note. Every fool knows that.!Aimulti (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Hanau's band management

Mark Hanau's involvement as manager of Curved Air and Saturnalia is not in dispute (both band's first albums state his involvement on their covers or in the inlays) so why are you seeking to delete all mentions of him from their articles ? RGCorris (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources and wp:re. The articles have source problems, that is bad enough for the bands itself and worse for people that are not in the band. There should be independent sources if some thing is notable, fan sites, personal sites, commercial sites are not independent sources. RetroS1mone talk 23:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The cover, liner notes, etc. of a record album would certainly be a reliable source. There may be other reasons to delete references to Mark from an article, but sourcing does not seem to be the issue here. (I note that Mark should not be inserting references to himself into Wikipedia articles. Editors, notable and otherwise, are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves.)--Srleffler (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lenticular printing

Hi. I restored and cleaned up the history section at Lenticular printing. Hopefully it is sufficiently less spammy now. The deletion of this section by several editors was really not appropriate. Material should have instead been pruned and edited to make the section comply with WP's guidelines. There was a lot of good content there. See also Talk:Lenticular printing.

Morgellons

RetroS1mone, while I admire your enthusiasm for editing, I believe that violations of WP:NPOV, and WP:V have been introduced by your edits of the Morgellons article. As discussed on the talk page, stay-at-home mother is not an appropriate description of Leitao's electron microscopist and immunohistochemist experience in relation to the topic of the article. "Lab technician" is POV and not supported by sources. "Son's toy microscope", and "he did say that several features of the case" is WP:OR. The use of special formatting to call attention to quoted POV material is not NPOV, and using disclaimers and WP:WTA to diminish views held by Morgellons proponents does not fairly represent their viewpoints. Adding material that has nothing to do with Morgellons to add weight to the Role of the internet is also not NPOV. You appear to be an intelligent and experienced editor, please cease editing that violates Wiki policies. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at NPOV Noticeboard here. Ward20 (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, Ward20! RetroS1mone talk 02:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for listening. Ward20 (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. While Ward and I rarely agree, I can at least agree that your choice of terms and phrasing are often not entirely neutral. I don't quite have the problems with the substance of your edits that Ward does - it was certainly true that the mainstream opinion was not fully expressed or explored - but this is a long-standing disagreement surrounding the article (that is, Ward does not agree that the mainstream opinion is what other editors think it is, nor as predominant, nor - conversely - that the MRF's opinions represent a "tiny minority" opinion). That aside, I'd encourage you to put some effort into making the tone of your edits more neutral. Dyanega (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dyanega! I will do my best! Let me know about specific edits you want me to change. Thanks again! RetroS1mone talk 21:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi RetroS1mone, I would appreciate it if you would not interject your comments within my comments on the talk page. It ends up making arguments hard to follow. Please respond totally below the comments and signature to which you are responding. Thank You. Ward20 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi RetroS1mone, you said on my talk page, [1]"My opinion, you have had a field day with a non scientific consensus POV at Morgellons for too long because people are not applying NPOV and FRINGE with rigor with you I don't know why. I like that you are polite unlike some of the past fringe editors at Morgellons but politeness is not a excuse for fringe POV." And you said on the Morgellons talk page, [2]"Ward20 has a long history of promoting this fringe theory on Wikipedia". Please do not make judgements on my POV or say I promote anything on Wikipedia. Please discuss the merits of my editing content and do not make personalized comments and accusations. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease

Hi RetroS1mone. “Chronic Lyme disease” has always been a confusing term to me since it has a different definition depending on who is using it. For example, some (and I believe this includes ILADS) use “chronic” to describe those with late manifestations of Lyme disease (arthritis, encephalomyelitis, ACA, etc.), which the medical community certainly recognizes. What the IDSA does not recognize is that the symptoms that persist in patients after the recommended antibiotic treatment are due to chronic infection.

Your recent edits have considerably improved the article. I hope you can continue to work on it. Unfortunately I’m not finding much time to work on it right now. NighthawkJ (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been asked by another editor to look at this article, and have made some comments there. I know you'll see it there, but I wanted to let the key people in the discussion know. DGG (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Spirochaete persistance

Retro,

I think that the point the articles cited there make - and I think you are right certain Lyme advocates do make this mistake - is that the spirochaetes have some potential at least to continue causing symptoms even after they are not present in the blood, if they are embedded intracellularly. Perhaps then, they could also cause relapses subsequently after breaking out from dormancy. But I agree with you, one should not go all those extra steps along the line that you mentioned. But do bear in mind that predominant opinion in the infectious diseases community dismisses the very idea that spirochaetes persist within tissues and have any relevance to anything in 'chronic' Lyme.

Anyway, there is more recent literature which I'll be citing in the text of the Wikipedia article that is relevant. But merely linking someone else's Web page (especially when linked to as hotheaded a group as Lymenet) is not the way to go.

     --Wanaqueling (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Spirochete Persistence; A Good Researcher Checks Facts, Does not Believe Discredited Scientists

Retro: Syphillis spirochetes are well known to persist in the blood and Lyme patients themselves (Mark Stroud) have filmed spirochetes in their own blood using darkfield microscopy. Persistence of infection has been well documented by numerous reputable studies starting in the US Army Medical College in 1970s -- and in the wikipedia Lyme microbiology page.. In fact, a 1976 U.S. military publication authored by biowarfare researcher Jay Sanford, entitled "The Biology of Parasitic Spirochetes," concluded definitively that the borrelia spirochete can remain active in the brain and eye after intensive antibiotic treatment: "the ablity of borrelia, especially tick-born strains to persist in the brain and the eye after treatment with arsenic or penicillin or even after apparent cure is well known. The persistence of treponemes after treatment of syphilis is a major area which currently requires additional study."

You tell me that the debate is NOT about persistence and that persistent infection is proven-- if that is not controversial then why are these many citations supporting persistence constantly removed, and why I am being banned for threatening to put them back in? The IDSA boys were investigated by Blumenthal, and yet you seem to trust everything they say blindly.. Please wake up and start independently verifying what these discredited researchers claim. They claim to be mainstream by citing IDSA together with AAN -- but the truth is that its the same small group of people on the committees at both IDSA and AAN-- the same people who have been INVESTIGATED BY AN ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR MALFEASANCE---- yet you trust blindly what they say.... Please start checking facts... I think this needs to be discussed at the highest levels of Wikipedia if you cannot give me a good explanation as to why these citations are deleted. I have restored the scientific citations back into the article please do not delete them or ban me again without a discussion. --FREYFAXI (my tilde is not working.. I have clearly signed my name here)

response to criticism

This is not soapboxing. The statments made are in direct violation of wikipedias rules. Wikipedia is not to be used to advance ones opinions. The statements that are made for that reason need to be removed as I plan on doing so. I ask that you and others not cause tedious editing. If you have some loyalty to one certain point of view then you should not be involved in editing this page. Please don't tell me that news reports and statements are not reliable sources, when as is the page includes a statement advocating one organization. Pryorka82 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wierd I never heard about a policy called tedious editing, can I ask you for a link or is that of being too tendentious of me?? RetroS1mone talk 01:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Hi. Just a quick note to say please keep 3RR in mind on Chronic fatigue syndrome outbreaks. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1