User talk:Scray/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


I decided before deleting the statement as not having RS, I would add a citation needed tag to it, and put in the article what it is that the state of Florida is supposedly "accrediting", which if true, will result in medical insurance coverage for what I quoted, all paid for out of both my and your monthly premiums. Is this "promotional"... or comic?, i.e., :(, or :) ? ParkSehJik (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought your use of "citation needed" was an appropriate template, superior to my prior deletion. It's courteous to give an editor a little time to find a reliable source (as long as it's not a BLP violation or dubious therapeutic claim). The response "this is what I heard when I registered" (or something to that effect) did not suggest that the editor understands our sourcing standards. -- Scray (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
See comment from other editor below, and then try to re-read your comments here (with their perspective in mind). I'll try to comment at AltMed soon, but I really have to run (real life is keeping me busy). -- Scray (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The comment is gone, but the repeated claim that words like "unproven" or "disproven" need to be removed from the lede because "there is 'some evidence' of efficacy of some alternative medicine", needs to somehow be addressed. The careful and thoughtful selection of NSF and NYAS words like "unproven" and "disproven" and using the "scientific method", as compared to a bunch of terribly designed experiments and carefully selected traditional herbal medicines surviving a Cochrane systematic review that admits to the methodological problems, but still indicates "some evidence", is a far cry from saying that 365 acupuncture points is "based on science", not Chinese astrology, or acupuncture having been "proven" because one of the 365 points may have some association with brain function, if the outcome of the terribly designed experiments were repeatable with better designed ones. Also, "based on", needs to be explicated. Now I am off to my Yoga class. Hey, although anectodatal, "it works for me", in that I find it to be highly addictive, making me want to stretch all the time, and its ritualistic elements (lights on and off, poetic langage) helps the time pass. Or maybe its just the "efficacy"" of that cute girl who sits next to me in each class... ParkSehJik (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Another perspective is requested

Scray, I have noticed that the patronizing comments and bad faith accusations from Park regarding my edits have now made it to your talk page, under the heading of LOL? I believe that you are here to help Park become a better editor, rather than encourage this kind of tendentious editing style? If you would like to help, please feel free to comment here [1]. I have tied to make minor copy-edit improvements to the article, which were all systematically reverted by Park. Rather than use policy or a common goal of improving the article to discuss the minor copy-edits he/she reverted, you can see that Park simply continues to use ad-hominum and strawman arguments, at the article talk page and apparently here, to avoid the issue. In the absence of real policy-based challenges, I should not have to spell out reference fixes and organizational fixes to avoid them being continuously reverted by Park, the edit summaries were very clear and our goal is to improve the article and make a good encyclopedia! I definitely should not have to be subjected to bad-faith accusations and ad-hominum attacks as part of that, policy based arguments are enough! I cannot simply restore the minor article improvements that Park has reverted because he has inexplicably placed a 3RR warning on my talk page regarding the restoration of copy-edits and I prefer to not edit war. The perspective of other editors would thus be appreciated. Would you be willing to give a perspective based on policy? Puhlaa (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just peeked at WP and saw your note - I will try to get over there to respond but it's a lot to process and real life has me busy - I will try to contribute thoughtfully soon. -- Scray (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have tried to make the thread [2] concise and clearly organized with relevant diffs to make it easy to follow. Note that I am only challenging the removal of minor copy-edits by Park. The 2 sources that were removed as part of my original edits are still under discussion, thus I am not asking to have those edits restored until consensus is reached. If you also care to share your opinion on the quality of sources used in the lead, and my removal of the CMAJ source, that discussion is here [3].Puhlaa (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

The Winter Walk at Anglesey Abbey - - 862583.jpg Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Sections above on the talk page. Ryanspir (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


i hope you will have some free time to contribute to the edit and discussion on the talk page of silver uses.. Ryanspir (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the article has improved in spite of your efforts to the contrary. Others seem to be preventing major problems so I'll focus elsewhere. -- Scray (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


didn't even realise there was a glitch til you reverted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs) 21:13, 12 January 2013

considering your helpful edit that preceded it, I assumed that it was inadvertent. -- Scray (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

my efforts

well, i'm trying to make sure the information is represented in the correct way, the article is unbiased, etc. I doubt that putting warnings and repeating 'uneffective' in excess despite fda clearance constitutes improvement. :) I would nominate this article as the most biased article on the wikipedia :).Ryanspir (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The "correct way" is to represent accurately the material found in reliable sources, and you've been slow to demonstrate understanding of that principle. It's been very frustrating for a lot of editors - we're happy to help new editors understand, but when they repeat the same behaviors in spite of coherent references to policy and guidance, it starts looking like fruitless effort. Have you read WP:Tendentious editing? It is quite insightful. -- Scray (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Prompting for revert

Could you please provide a quote for that? I didn't know this, thanks for informing, if indeed its true. Ryanspir (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

From the WP:3RR page: The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. The "without you prompting them" clearly suggests that if you do prompt another editor, their revert is part of the war (and I've seen an admin block for this type of behavior). This is common sense. -- Scray (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I would rather agree with you here. Thanks again for pointing it out. Ryanspir (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, but reverted your edits on mouth ulcer for the time being...

please see comments on talkpage of aphthous ulcer article (about rename) for explanation... Lesion (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Scray.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the kind gesture! And thanks for helping fix that inconsistency too. =) Biosthmors (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Eliminating the Ref Desks

You made the following comment on the Ref Desks' Talk page (boldface mine).

I agree that the questions above won't be resolved in short order by SteveBaker's suggestion, but RefDesk contributors should be aware of the fragile ground we stand on here. Many question the value of the RefDesk for the WP project. The level of strife surrounding the RefDesks often eclipses their value, and they ultimately contribute only indirectly to the overall content of WP. We should realize that in other venues, elimination of the RefDesks has been entertained many times (with compelling arguments). Reformulating as SteveBaker suggested could, at some point, become more attractive than dissolution. That said, we should focus here on the questions asked above. -- Scray (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I must have been asleep through all of such discussions, because I don't recall having seen such a proposal anywhere, never mind multiple ones. Can you point me to a few of them? (I am not doubting you. I just didn't know anything about the matter.) Thanks for your help. Bielle (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Bielle, sorry about the lack of response but RL has interfered. I must also apologize for not being able to recall exactly where I got that impression, but I think it was at AN/I, Village Pump, and/or ArbCom case files (it's been months, possibly a year, since I saw this - but it made a strong impression because it was so jarring). The comments I'm thinking of came from experienced editors, and suggested that the RefDesks are not particularly encyclopedic and tend to generate drama. I can remember thinking, but cannot recall whether I or someone else responded, that the RefDesks help to expose gaps in the WP. I've tried a bit to search using Boolean terms, it's hard to search for content like this when the usage is so flexible (including RD - a very poor search term). I don't mean to suggest that I expect the RDs to be eliminated - they are too useful in their present form, but I remain convinced that this notion is "out there"; in retrospect, "many" may have been too strong a word (multiple is probably more accurate) and I should avoid stirring the pot without a good source at hand. -- Scray (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
If you ever come across the discussion(s), I'd like to see them. I am merely curious as I wasn't aware that anyone outside of those we see asking and answering on the RDs had even much knowledge of them. Medeis does try to stir things up at AN from time to time, but he/she seems more interested in running to "tell Daddy" that some one or more are not behaving according to his/her P.O.V. The response has been lukewarm, at best. As for tending to generate drama, whoever suggested that must have had tongue firmly in cheek. If one were to take the following sentence out of your comment and swap out almost any WP namespace for "RefDesks", it would still be valid:
The level of strife surrounding the RefDesks often eclipses their value, and they ultimately contribute only indirectly to the overall content of WP.
Thanks, Bielle (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Map projection

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Map projection. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments on the Talk page. There's also a discussion going on at, and I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts there. Thanks! (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


Hey Scary if you look at the ref UN2011Ten you will notice that it is the most recent document (2011) and is EXACTLY the same as the new ref that was added. We do not need duplicates of the same ref. It is listed after the rest of the refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

James: Thanks for clarifying. When I made my edit regarding it being the 2010 version, it had a link to the 2010 version (and I was very puzzled by your edits). I see that it was later un-linked (no URL in the ref). If the correct link (to 2011 version) is attached, then I agree that there's no need to have 2 different links. When RL allowed, my plan was to go back and fix all of these references, but doing it in 10-page blocks makes it very tedious. btw, it's "Scray", not "Scary" - common mistake, easily made. -- Scray (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry :-) What do you mean by fix the references? What would you suggest instead of doing it in 10 page blocks? The url is at the very bottom of the ref section and it states 2011 in the ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was sure that an earlier version had a link to the 2010 report, but I must've had that wrong. I do think the page ranges are pretty arbitrary - most of the facts can be found in tables, which could be cited specifically - but this sort of thing I should raise on the talk page. Sorry about my disruption (though the 2005 part was right). Cheers, -- Scray (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

revert at breast cancer

Saw that revert... FYI check that article Talk page, that edit has been well discussed. Personally I don't like it and am happy to.leave it out but Doc was OK with it done the way it was. May want to check in at the Talk page. Thanks... Zad68 03:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I have reverted myself. I should have looked at the Talk page. After searching the Cochrane Library I did find the link to the cochrane-dot-dk page from their formal breast cancer screening recs (under information for lay people), but it seems very sloppy for them to have posted it that way. Also seems much too strongly worded. -- Scray (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tea! I'm with you 100% on this, it's quite a significant change from before and I am still more than a little uncomfortable with putting the weight of "Cochrane" behind this in our article. What's the rush? If Cochrane really means to make this change why can't we wait a little bit until the sourcing for it is less sketchy? Maybe you can help me convince Doc about this at the article Talk page. Thanks... Zad68 13:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we have to live by the standards we set - and so I would not revisit it - the die is cast for now. IMHO Cochrane gets disproportionate credibility considering the warts on the process, but that's where we are. Illustrating this, Cochrane should be embarrassed by putting a poorly-crafted statement like that on a secondary server and pointing to it from their main site - it has the appearance of talking out of both sides of their mouths. Like you, I like the notion of establishing a list of "good" journals, but I fear that it will shift the battle to curating that list, and even good journals fall down sometimes. There are some areas that just aren't served well by crowdsourcing. -- Scray (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
it will shift the battle to curating that list - Probably true. Still think the hours of maintenance of such a list as compared to the hours of arguments it would prevent might make it an overall net positive. Zad68 03:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I also recall MastCell making a great point being made about journals not simply being unidirectionally good for all things - it's a nuanced issue because of specific domains of authority (e.g. blood versus heart disease). This does not nullify your idea - it's just that the existence of such a list still would not solve the problem when applied to WP content disputes (on the plus side, we'd be worrying over far fewer journals). -- Scray (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Not expecting it to 'solve' any problem, just lessen the overall required problem-solving workload. Zad68 04:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

PUBMED - re Science Ref Desk question on microbes in throat


Before you critise me for commenting on a post of yours, I suggest YOU make sure of YOUR facts.

If you attempt to access PUBMED articles as an ordinary online citizen, starting from the link you provided on Ref Desk, you'll find that while it is sourced from the US National Libray of Medicine, your access to an article is managed by Elsevier Science Direct, and you have to pay for it - $31.50 USD in the case of the James E Graham article on respiratory diagnosis.

Incidentally, if you look at the PUBMED webpage you cited, you'll see that the material is actually copyrighted by Elsevier as well.

Wickwack (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've got my facts right, and you don't. You said, "As far as I know, PUBMED, which is part of the Elsevier publishing empire, only makes articles available for free if they are judged to be of signifiant historical interest."[4] That is patently false on a few accounts, most importantly that Pubmed is part of NIH/NLM/NCBI (i.e. not Elsevier). Pubmed provides links to a variety of providers of full text, including journal publishers and clearinghouses, one of which is Elsevier. Pubmed also provides links to Pubmed Central (when the paper is available there) - and that database is growing rapidly. The abstract is copyrighted by Elsevier, of course (since they published the paper) - that does not make Pubmed the property of Elsevier. Here's another link to Pubmed: PMID 23652774. If Pubmed is owned, why don't we see them noted anywhere on that page? Also note that paper is available for free from that page. Pubmed is quite comprehensive, hence it's a great place to search. The reader has a variety of options when provided a Pubmed link. Clearly, Pubmed is not (as you claim), "part of the Elsevier publishing empire". -- Scray (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
This discussion will not continue here, since it's on Talk:RefDesk now. If you post in this thread again, I'll just move it over there to keep it in one place. -- Scray (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute ref

Thanks for adding the ref. I didn't have access to either of the other two refs, so I couldn't verify what they said. Seeing the one you added, I was reminded of some details of the case I'd forgotten, plus I was tired and misread the allegations to be closer to the beginning of the process, which was why I said I didn't remember it happening that way. Re-reading it this morning, I see now that that was my misunderstanding. I think it's good to have the extra ref there to directly support the first half of the statement, though, so thanks for adding one so quickly. RobinHood70 talk 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My presumption, generally, is that for every reader who speaks up regarding need for a reference, there are 10x more who silently think the same thing - not always a good assumption, but it prompts me to look more closely, so your suggestion was helpful. -- Scray (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


I don't think it (spammer) counts as a personal attack, but I have no problem deleting that part so long as the point is made. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied on your Talk page, where this conversation started. -- Scray (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For your list of templates, a multi pmid one

Template:CitePMIDs (The speedy came from me myself after 100+edits. As i came back later, i got the tip on the tag: trick and it worked well) --Ossip Groth (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Testing templates in article space

The mirna 196 edit is content-valid, and the microrna template is running well. So it could be restored - without the evaluation-contents-follows link. It was a easy-to-write template with no potential of code trouble. Papers werde indeed parsed to generate sci-valid contents. Sure I evaluated my now-running CitePMIDs template - which has a very simple code but the way to get it running took hours of finding how others caught the solution i copied... --Ossip Groth (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't follow much of what you just said (no need to explain, either), but it is quite possible that some of what you put on that page was valid; however, a lot of the edits were tests - described by you as such - when testing should not be done in article space. That's what your sandbox is for. That's all I wanted to make sure you understand. -- Scray (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but since I already have access, I'll leave this valuable "seat" available to other editors. -- Scray (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

video of paper airplane

Thanks! Could you please tell me what the video demonstrated? My internet connection is not good. Thanks! Armeria wiki (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It showed someone playing with a paper airplane in zero gravity. It a visual demonstration, not easily described in text. -- Scray (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
How did the paper airplane fly in the video? Did it fly up or down?Armeria wiki (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It's up to you to watch it when you can - I cannot describe it simply. -- Scray (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Amphetamine Mixed Salts & WP:MEDRS

Can you please cite for me to the particular text you're referring to in your recent revert? Even after reading the MEDRS page several times in the past hour, I'm not sure what text you're referring to in your revert. Regards, Seppi333 (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss this where I learned of the edit-warring - at WTMED. -- Scray (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

ref desk

My apology, it was unfair to lay that inside joke without a warning. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You are gracious to come here and say so. My concern is that admins get beaten up a lot, and I would not want casual banter to discourage further those who might take such a comment as a general indictment of volunteer efforts. Cheers, -- Scray (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Morgellons". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 03:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi Scray... regarding this, have you not read this essay? Yes WP:AGF and don't WP:BITE but when an editor starts out like that, I don't see the point in making it harder to do our jobs. Zad68 00:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a good point (I had read the essay, and WP:CGTW), but I won't let cynicism own me completely. The feedback is appreciated. -- Scray (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I trust you'll be involved at the article Talk page when the new editor brings inappropriate sources, insists WP:MEDRS allows primary sources, doesn't see what the big deal is about secondary sources, misunderstands/misapplies WP:DUEWEIGHT, and is egged on by the other editor there? Probably a few weeks worth of work, and I'm already way behind schedule on the article I'm trying to bring to GA right now. Yeah, every day I see more and more truth in CGTW, unfortunately. Zad68 00:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I already accepted the feedback. Take your burdens somewhere else. -- Scray (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
In case you're still watching here, I see the process played out in the proper way. Glad to see that, and thanks for defending the wiki. -- Scray (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem, tensions have been running high around here generally in the past few weeks, something in the water I guess... Zad68 03:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Simply a fact

I've said this to you before, but edits like this make me think that you're not trying to build concensus. Casting aspersions on other editors' capacity to understand the article will not help. Please stop that. -- Scray (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not casting aspersions on another editor's capacity to understand the published study: rather I said directly that the editor in question did not understand the published study. That is simply a fact. I also chastised the editor for his facetious remarks (namely: "teapot in space") when he should have been taking the subject seriously and earnestly.
All in all, my response was appropriate for someone who was (a) wrong, and propagating the falsehood on the discussion page, and (b) facetious. It is your above remark which I think was inappropriate and uncalled for. Drgao (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: In fact, it looks like it was me that was wrong (at least partly) regarding properly comprehending the published study in question, rather than editor Drgao (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite impressed with your admission here and on the article's Talk page - that's neither easy nor usual, because people have a hard time admitting such errors. This is also why I am loath to take an overly dogmatic/dramatic stance on a topic - it's too easy to fall when you're off-balance. I hope that we're approaching some sort of detente now, it's been a distraction from important work. -- Scray (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 13:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Scray. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Medical International (2nd nomination).
Message added 03:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000(talk) 03:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

discussion move

That is one way to terminate a discussion. I have better things to do. dolfrog (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It was misplaced, and I moved it. If I had not done that, other options would have been deletion or hatting. That's the wrong place to discuss one editor's style. -- Scray (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I was only using that as an example of a general problem. Due to my lack of advocacy skills I will have to finish this now dolfrog (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
A general problem with that user? Even if that's true, it belongs on that user's talk page, though you're welcome to notify WP:MED members of the discussion (just keep the notice neutral). I don't really understand the last part of what you said. -- Scray (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The last part is about me, and due to my auditory processing disorder, which is a life long disability, I am able to highlight issues, but not always best able to express myself using both the spoken word, and the written word, especially in an live debate or discussion, I need time to process what others are saying to fill in my own information processing gaps, this extra time can vary from minutes, to hours, to days, to months, to years etc. Which why I do not participate in copy editing, but only added and improve citations on Wikipedia. Sometimes I can wrongly assume that others understand all that i have said or have written and not realise that i have may have missed something out out chosen a wrong word to express what i want to say. Sorry for rambling on dolfrog (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Still alive!

I don't know if you're a fan of the game, but your comment here immediately made me think of this Face-smile.svg Zad68 20:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I had not seen/heard that before. Now I've got to get a different tune stuck in my head or I'll go nuts. But, those credits are incredibly clever. Might have to play that game - have meant to since it was released. -- Scray (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Definitely worth playing. Might still be on sale on Steam. MastCell Talk 22:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Hi. I had made the addition to the Aphthous stomatitis post ( about the use of lysine. I appreciate your editing of the article. Could use some more clarification from you. Read the WP:MEDDATE. Your identification that source material citations should be no less than 5 years old seems problematic. This would invalidate several other cited references in the article that provide no secondary citation at older than 20o8. Plus none of the current items in the table I had added to provide any citation reference. Could you please assist in how the content I am trying to add to improve this article could be added without creating an issue that would require your prompt removal? As you are clearly far more experienced in understanding how to make correct additions to medical articles...could you offer some guidance to a newbie on how to introduce my content without jeopardizing the accuracy of wikipedia? Am trying to be professional by providing sourcing. If attempting to provide reliable sourcing for this content is impossible given wikipedia policy, what other option is available to include this content without going against wiki policy? Would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll comment at Talk:Aphthous_stomatitis#Lysine, which is where we should discuss content of the article. -- Scray (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

100% BLP?

Hi Scray, I saw this removal... I do agree that one bit of it was questionable per BLP but the rest of it wasn't, and also someone else had replied to it, making reference to the non-problematic part. Would you consider instead replacing the text and redacting just the questionable part? Zad68 23:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right - the BLP was ugly but I should've left the rest - fixed. Thanks for being so considerate. -- Scray (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Getting started on Lyme

So we're starting to crack open the content at Lyme, which is great. How'd you like to do this? We can continue with the "look over the shoulder" approach we have been taking. Or we can each take a section and double-check each others' work after the completion of a significant round of changes. The first approach (what we've been doing) would work well if you think you're less likely to initiate new work on a section yourself. The second would be better if you are interested in starting with your own 'blank slate' and like composing chunks of new content. I'm happy with either, I think your adjustments/fixes are helpful. Just let me know how you'd like to continue. Zad68 16:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that divide-and-conquer would be better, particularly less frustrating, than looking-over-the-shoulder (sorry). Is there any section you think is a real mess that you'd like me to tackle? We can message each other when we feel like our section is ready for an interim look. -- Scray (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey honestly I don't mind over-the-shoulder all that much. It's much more important that the article present the best-quality information accurately than any worry about my ego getting bruised. But sections-and-crosscheck sounds good too. I just took a quick look at the article, the sourcing for both the Pathophysiology and Diagnosis sections looks to be in serious need of updating and bringing into WP:MEDRS compliance. I bet you might be stronger than me at doing Pathophysiology, would you like to pick that up? I'll start looking at Diagnosis. How would you like to share sources? Do you have a Google account? We can upload and share documents using Google drive pretty easily that way, happy to set it up if you'd like to use it. Zad68 02:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. I just sent you an email to help with setting up document sharing. -- Scray (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese man o' war

I reverted your reversion on the Portuguese man o' war. The previous user corrected a sentence and you removed his correction with a comment that it "didn't add value" or some such thing. The line is clearly incorrect in the context without his correction. (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right - thanks. -- Scray (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you split the genetic code?

We had a very well written genetic code article as I read it a year or so ago. Frequently I would refer people there to read. Now the article is split up, and there is new material - of less significance - that has been added under "Origin". I'm new, and it is hard for me to follow the history of the split. I see no discussion. For a while, I thought a bot did it! Please explain. Kind regards ... 02:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Layden (talkcontribs)

The page history indicates a decrease of about 5150 bytes in August with this edit. Is that what you're talking about? In any case, it wasn't I who split the article. -- Scray (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I am new with few edits. Could a bot have split it up? Am I dumb enough to leave messages for a bot? Thank you. Frank Layden (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard of a bot splitting an article. I suggest you direct your questions to the Talk page of the article of interest, and/or the author of the edit I linked above. -- Scray (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Epstein-Barr virus naming

Thank you for your comments on my inappropriate help request on the Mol. and Cell Bio. page (I edited the language on the request). I let myself get WAY too the point where I missed some good points made by others. I really like your idea of using the acronyms for EBV-related pages, but maybe as redirects to written out pages. I've given up on the en dash issue: I found some key lit. (humiliatingly enough from my own the old days) that sets a good precedent for the en dash (though it is rarely used in modern lit.). The hyphenation stuff is the major point now. I've suggested using the written out names for the main pages and used the ones ones that best fit the accepted EBV gene acronyms (citing relevant papers in PubMed). Thanks again and if you feel inclined to weigh in it would be great to have your reasonable input. Thank again! Walternmoss (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. I avoid editing in my own area of most intense expertise because of my own intense feelings (an implicit COI) - this is simply my own way to handle it; to each his/her own. -- Scray (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
BTW, please see my follow-up comment over there. -- Scray (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources Noticeboard notification

A discussion you have participated in, (Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 13#That "trio" was the Perth Group) has been brought to the Reliable sources Noticeboard (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Perth Group website). - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)