User talk:Six words/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

TCM

Thanks for taking the time to look after the TCM article! It's actually still far from being finished, though. Could you maybe give some specific feedback regarding the "model of the body" and "concept of disease" sections (because most of the stuff I'm going to add will look something like that)? Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely will, unfortunately I got to do a lot less than I wanted last weekend. I hope to find some time tomorrow afternoon. --Six words (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright - please, take your time. Kein Stress! :) --Mallexikon (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Jamesrandi9999

Sorry, I just wanted to add diffs for more ease of transparency's sake. Nightscream (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Guttenberg

Please stop vandalizing the Guttenberg article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichhasserandolph (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing controversial, unverifiable material from a biography isn't vandalism, in fact, WP:BLP asks for the immediate removal of such material. Before reverting I looked for sources online and didn't find any, and after your latest revert I even bothered to turn on the telly, there are NO sources confirming this and until there are, it shouldn't be in the article. --Six words (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad idea spotter

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For pointing out unWikipedian like behavior Kthapelo (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto that. PPdd (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks on stepping back advice

Thanks on the stepping back advice. Nothing like a little time, distance, and patience to add to perspective. I am now working on a newspaper article on Buddhism, and I hope to tap in to the knowledge of those I was in conflict with on the TCM article and get their help. :) PPdd (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hockey stick controversy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hockey stick controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Listing of Fiona Graham at the dispute resolution noticeboard

Hi Six words. Just letting you know that an editor has taken this article to the DRN. As an editor who participated in the recent edits, you might be interested. Regards Your Lord and Master (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but the request has already been closed. The IPs'/new accounts' editing speaks for itself, I doubt they'll find many sympathetic ears in other venues. --Six words (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not autoconfirmed

Hello 6,

Despite my account being active for over a year and me having made more than 10 edits, my status seems to not have been elevated to autoconfirmed. Could you shed some light on this situation for me, please?

Thank you for your time and consideration, John Tellsbadjokes (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, are you sure you're not autoconfirmed? You can check this by clicking on "my preferences". If you aren't, it might have something to do with the IP you're editing from. Are you using an anonymised IP? --Six words (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:President of Croatia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:President of Croatia. 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) 04:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marchmont Observatory

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marchmont Observatory. 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) 05:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss before revert

Please , explain where my changes are not compatible with the sources already in use. --OBenfey (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

From the discussion at talk it is crystal clear that you don't have consensus for your change. While it would be wrong to revert a change that has gained consensus at the talk page, it's quite OK to revert edits that are against consensus. --Six words (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi, I am just writing to aplogise getting your very valuable comment (under the stupidly named Homeopathy and the Laws of Physic thread) sort of 'blocked'. I just wrote to noformation apologising to him as well and suggesting that your contribution was in fact very much on topic and relevant. Further comments by me under that thread would have confirmed that. You are of course quite right that it doesn’t matter whether Avogadro was a chemist or a physicist. My intended mischief backfired, big time. Sorry. Sleuth21 Sleuth21 (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, the thread is just closed and collapsed, everyone can still read it if they want to. This is usually done to discourage further answers to an off-topic thread. (It is "off-topic" because it's not about improving our article which is, after all, what talk pages are for - see WP:TALK).
FWIW, I think you misunderstand the "prevailing opinion" of homeopathy Wikipedia editors have - there's no doubt homeopathy works as placebo treatment, and that placebos can help people improve. It could be so easy to write a great article about how homeopathy came to be, what Hahnemann thought at that time and how our understanding of disease and the human body has changed since then - if only there was a consensus on this between mainstream science and homeopaths. Unfortunately instead of accepting that while their theories gave them some good strategies (hygiene and healthy diet for example) other things (miasms, law of similars, law of infinitesimals) are wrong in hindsight (a parallel to that would be the phlogiston-theory 17th century chemists developed - it did offer an explanation to some phenomena they observed and even allowed them to make some predictions - as we now know it was wrong, anyway) and trying to remove those from their practice, they are sure if science doesn't show the homeopathic principles are right then science must be broken. Then there's the problem that most non-scientists aren't good at interpreting "the language of science". A trial that is inconclusive isn't a "positive" trial, and "more research is needed" is often nothing but a set phrase. Most of the longterm Wikipedians (if not all) know this, so why is it so hard to write a better article? I think it's mostly due to three types of single purpose editors that haunt the homeopathy article and talk page.
Type one is someone (or knows someone) who was helped by homeopathy, and to them calling it placebo, regression to the mean, [...] sounds utterly wrong and like an attempt to "bad-mouth" this treatment (after all most people still think placebo effect means "you weren't really ill in the first place" - which is, of course - untrue).
Type two are "true-believer" practitioners, who have spent both time and money on learning those (you have to admit it - wacky) theories and have seen people improve - they, too, mostly think that placebo="nothing was wrong with them", so they can't accept that their "art" is called a placebo therapy.
Type three are "hardcore sceptics" (they are very few and seldomly try to edit the article, but they do exist) who think that since homeopathy is obviously a placebo treatment and practitioners don't admit this it must be a scam, IOW that practitioners knowingly "rip off" their customers.
There are other factors hindering the improvement of our article, too, (even if everyone accepted that it's a placebo treatment, there'd still be controversy whether it's okay for a physician to prescribe a placebo treatment - in my eyes that is pretty much the only controversy over homeopathy that exists in mainstream science, and then there's the question of what happens if patients find out that they've been treated with a placebo - will they still be able to trust their physician?), but they are minor in my eyes. What really prevents us from improving the article is that every single sentence has to be referenced to three to five references because otherwise someone (be it SPA Type 1, 2 or 3) will make sure there'll be twenty pages of talk page discussion over it. --Six words (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate your detailed comments but dis agree with some of your points. Your typology of editors who prevent our article to be improved is interesting but incomplete. There is for instance the anti-homeopathy obsessive who thinks saying anything positive about homeopathy constitutes a homeopathy apologia. They are truly misguided and I find them disturbing and destructive. That’s why I started my own sandbox where I test out ideas without being shot down by this type (or living in fear of same) Sleuth21 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

An afterthought if I may (17th Jan. was a bit hectic with the WP blackout looming...): If, as you say

'What really prevents us from improving the article is that every single sentence has to be referenced to three to five references because otherwise someone (be it SPA Type 1, 2 or 3) will make sure there'll be twenty pages of talk page discussion over it'

is true (and of course it is) then the complexity and ref. overkill of the lede is a WP-generated artefact and has nothing to do with the complexity of the subject per se. We have to stop it, I think. Shall we join forces? Or is this question in violation of WP rule 354a, para3, sentence 17: ‘Do not canvas’? :-) BTW: Koennen wir das auch auf deutsch machen? I hab' da so meine Vermutungen..Sleuth21 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Natürlich können wir uns auf meiner Benutzerseite auch auf deutsch unterhalten!
Der Homöopathie-Artikel ist leider ein sehr schwieriger "Einstieg" in die Wikipedia, und grundsätzlich werden neue Wikipedianer (bezogen auf den "edit count", weniger auf das Registrierungsdatum) von vielen dort sehr kritisch beobachtet. Es gibt einiges was mir an der Einleitung nicht gefällt (z.B. auch die - meiner Meinung, ich bin kein Muttersprachler - total verkorkste Formulierung "in which practitioners claim to treat patients"), aber so gut wie jede Änderung braucht tatsächlich eine ellenlange Diskussion, und meistens kommt trotzdem nichts zustande.
Bei Belegen sollte immer lieber auf Qualität als auf Quantität geachtet werden, die Praxis, Belege "anzuhäufen" ist aber (leider) bei vielen hart umkämpften Artikeln gang und gäbe (s. Waterboarding, Muhammad, MMR vaccine controversy, Aspartame controversy, Scientology, Creationism usw.), und um so eine einmal eingebürgerte Praxis zu ändern wäre ein starker Konsens nötig - schon beim Homöopathie-Artikel mit 764 (meist stillen) Beobachtern ein schwieriges Unterfangen, Wikipedia-weit unmöglich. Und auch wenn ich es selbst nicht gut finde, ich kann die Beweggründe verstehen: hat die Einleitung eines "kontroversen" Artikels keine Belege, werden bald wöchentlich {{cn}} Bausteine eingefügt oder ganze Abschnitte ohne Diskussion gelöscht, weil "unbelegt". Ist nur eine Quelle angegeben wird mit Sicherheit irgendjemand behaupten, das sei nur "cherry picking", und die zitierte Quelle sei die einzige, die diese Aussage mache. Um solche Diskussionen zu vermeiden (die meistens daraus entstehen, dass der neue Wikipedianer/Anon vorher versucht hat selbst etwas in den Artikel einzufügen und mit einer dieser Begründungen - nicht belegt oder "cherry picking" - zurückgesetzt wurde) wird dann schon die Einleitung mit Belegen zugepflastert. Der große Vorteil von Wikipedia kann auch einer ihrer größten Nachteile sein: jeder darf mitarbeiten, wodurch manchmal Kompromisse entstehen, mit denen niemand wirklich zufrieden ist. Das ist ein bekanntes Problem, für das ich aber keine Lösung sehe. --Six words (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop deleting my links

As soon as I post a link to a piece of music dedicated to Anneliese, you come along and delete it. Stop it. TheManInTheDarkness (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules for selecting external links - I've already linked to them in my edit summaries, but I don't mind doing it again: WP:EL. Links to Amazon aren't considered “valuable information” but rather advertising and therefore aren't allowed (if Wikipedia allowed them, pretty soon every song/album/film that has an article on Wikipedia would have hundreds of external links to webshops selling copies). I can't prevent you from posting this inappropriate external link, but I certainly won't stop deleting it. --Six words (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That aspartame 'study'

Wow, just wow.... As a researcher that works with animals it makes me wonder what ethics panel this 'experiment' went though. As well, the lack of any sense of experimental design, statistical analyses, operational definitions etc is plain ol' bizarre. I think I have an example for a class though, so something good has come of it..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's something. It's also a good example of the Dunning-Kruger-effect, the “citizen scientist” thinks she has debunked previous (industry sponsored) studies “by exposing the flaws in their experimental designs”. There's an interview on the internet (with J. Mercola) in which she says that doing the study ‘wasn't very hard’ and that she herself diagnosed the tumors/‘did the pathology’.

It's hard to imagine (though not impossible) that none of the animals in the “control group” had any kind of visible lumps - while I myself never had any pet rats, several friends and relatives had, and most of these animals eventually had to be put down because of tumors, enormous abscesses or paralysed hind legs (all diagnosed and treated by vets). I honestly don't think that someone who has never had rats before can care for 108 animals properly (I'm not even sure an experienced pet owner could handle such a number of them) and I'm afraid (or rather: judging from what she said in this interview I'm pretty sure) not a single one of these animals was ever taken to the vet or received any kind of treatment for the many “effects” that the “citizen scientist” observed, including skin rashes and eye infections. --Six words (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and how were they sacrificed? I could go on. Man... This is horrible. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. 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) 06:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

MMS

You have twice changed back the wiki that I edited on the Miracle Mineral Supplement, which I edited because it was biased and not fully informative. You have cited "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)" and the use of terms "silver bullet", "bane" and "duly" as the reason for reverting back to the original biased wiki.

Please inform me as to why those terms are inappropriate for this wiki, and advice me as to what better action I can take to provide better links. The MMS page needs to be change to contain unbiased and accurate information, which is does not in it's currently reverted state.

Or please change the information so that it reflects unbiased information and education for those seeking it. Otherwise, I will just keep changing it back until we are both flagged for violation, which is no fun. I would much rather work with you, which I wish you would have done with me by letting me know what errors I placed. Clearly I am not a seasoned wikipedia user, though I am trying to my best to do this right and I would appreciate help rather than defiance, as I am sure you would like to see properly edited wiki's.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bema Self (talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise you to “keep changing it back until we are both flagged for violation” (I certainly won't do it so you'd have to find someone else for that game anyway), and let me just say that it doesn't motivate me much to help you when you make such a threat.
It's a grave misunderstanding of Wikipedia's goals to expect that articles are unbiased, they are intentionally biased in favour of science (and Wikipedia is not an exception there, other encyclopedias are the same). This is done on the assumption that the scientific method is the best strategy humankind has to aquire knowledge. Wikipedia tries to collect and summarise this knowledge in the form of articles, and tries to do so in an unemotional style. Articles shouldn't use flowery language (see WP:MOS, WP:W2W), and while scholarly articles and textbooks aren't the only acceptable sources (except for medical claims - as I explained on the MMS talk), they are preferred (WP:RS, WP:MEDRS).
You can do quite a lot actually (besides taking some time to read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - you should probably do this first or the other things might turn out to be more stressful than they need to be). Start looking for acceptable sources, discuss on the MMS talk page (you haven't brought up any specific complaint there, just your definition of balance), gain consensus. Do all of this before changing the article. Cheers, --Six words (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been included in a Wikietiquette thread

Greetings, I am just here to let you know I have included you in a request for assistance I have opened in the Wikietiquette notice board, to try and help better facilitate an atmosphere in the MMS talk page, so that we can all work together better to improve the article. The conversation has thus far not gone as well as I would have hoped, mostly due to my own challenges in clearly stating my reasons for seeking assistance. It is my hope that my most recent comment helps to clear things up, and that we can all receive some assistance from third parties, as to how to better work with each other on the controversial subject at hand without misinterpreting each others actions or responses anymore. --Bema Self (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Left a reply there. --Six words (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. 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) 07:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. 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) 09:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. 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) 10:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Neotame flunky.

Amazing how you removed all of the controversial content regarding Neotame. Why do you think Blogs aren’t reliable sources? Monsanto’s blog—which claims that Neotame is safe—is just a blog, too, just like your page here. I don’t think that your sources are reliable at all, Neotame is a dangerous, highly toxic substance and you have no right to remove all hint of controversy about it from that article, and you should be banned from vandalizing Wikipedia, forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkingman (talk • contribs) 10:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, please assume good faith - if you can't Wikipedia isn't the right place for you. Whenever you edit an article to add things that might be challenged, you need to provide a reliable source. The more controversial the claim is, the stronger the source needs to be. Blogs usually aren't considered great sources because anyone can start one, but if you're in doubt about a particular source you can ask for other Wikipedians' opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard. Citing reliable sources (if you're making medical claims, the standards are even higher) is Wikipedia policy so I'll have to insist on proper sourcing for your additions. Sorry about that, but those are the rules. --Six words (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images. 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) 11:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items. 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) 12:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Indentation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Indentation. 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) 12:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:The need for coordination

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:The need for coordination. 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) 13:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. 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) 13:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Luc Montagnier HIV

so media stories are considered "scientific evidence" for a statement that effects the whole world? How about some peer reviewed literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinx69 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement you removed was that he got his Nobel prize for the discovery of the HI virus - we don't need a scientific source for that. Did you follow the link I left at your talk page? Or is the official Nobel prize website not reliable in your eyes? --Six words (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ah k yeh i get what your saying because thats what the prize was for then a link to the prize info itself is adequate, if the statement about HIV was alone then literature citation would be necessary right?

I am trying to make people aware that there is not 1 literature article that is adequate to back such claims....

Jinx69 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You're being pedantic Jinx69. The fact that L.M. discovered HIV is covered in numerous articles. --Daffydavid (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your claim is false Jinx69 -- The original paper - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6189183 and a critique of it -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15325002 identifying the change in name to HIV. --Daffydavid (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I'm not sure I understand your question. If the lede only said “Luc Montagnier discovered the HI virus” we could use the BBC source, too - the fact that he received a Nobel prize for discovering the virus is proof that he is one of the people who discovered the virus (and published their results I might have to add - it's entirely possible that someone else isolated the virus before them but thought they somehow botched up their experiment, but that would be their problem then). Of course for scientific claims (like the one that HIV causes AIDS), scientific literature ranks higher in the “literature hierarchy” than news soures, but unless the scientific literature contradicts a (high quality) news source I wouldn't want to remove a statement just because it isn't sourced with a scientific source. --Six words (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

From the person who cited those two literatures the first one is the one the whole HIV and AIDS "model" is based on. The second literature you cited is a critique from a group of people from Australia called "the Perth group". Like many biologists/chemists/research scientists etc they understand that montagniers original paper (the one you first cited) contains NO scientific bases for the claim "we have isolated a NEW UNIQUE retrovirus found ONLY in a patient with "AIDS". Its hard to get a hold of the full article ( i have it on my computer) as opposed to just the abstract.

"We conclude that, these phenomena are non-specific to retroviruses and thus cannot be considered proof for the existence of a unique retrovirus HIV."

The above quote is from the critique by "the Perth group".

My contention is it is such a bold BOLD statement in the opening lines of his wikipedia article that a literature citation is NECESSARY (not a media story/secondary source). The problem arises that if one accepts my criteria that a peer reviewed literature article must be cited............well......NO such paper exists that conclusively shows "we have isolated a NEW UNIQUE retrovirus found ONLY in a patient(s) with "AIDS"". If his full (if it can be found i will search and find it) original paper is cited.....its an inaccurate citation for such a statement (as above about HIV and AIDS) please watch a 18min interview on youtube with Kary Mullis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.24.34 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Jinx69 (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

But we're not using your criteria, we're using Wikipedia's general criteria and for medical claims Wikipedia's criteria for medical sources (which don't accept Medical Hypotheses as a reliable source - at least not articles that were published before 2010 because they aren't peer reviewed). Let me repeat it: Montagnier got the Nobel prize for his discovery. For Wikipedia that's enough to verify that he is recognised by his peers as (one of) the discoverer(s) of HIV. You seem to be trying to discuss with me whether the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS is right - sorry, you'll have to convince the medical community, not a random Wikipedian. We go with what mainstream science thinks. I'm not going to watch someone's youtube interview and there's no point in continuing this line of discussion. If you think the sourcing for the article isn't good enough please discuss it on the reliable sources noticeboard, but be warned that the lede usually doesn't require any sources as it's just a summary of the article, so be sure you're discussing the sourcing of the article body rather than the lede. --Six words (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC) P.S.: I had no problem obtaining both sources Daffydavid suggested - they're available as pdfs from ScienceDirect.

John F. Kennedy

I posted a suggestion for an edit to JFK's page. So far no one seems to have noticed it. I decided not to use the edit request template, since you had noted above my comment the template should only be used after consensus is reached. But I'm not sure what to do if my comment doesn't get attention. Should I just wait longer and keep watching the watch page. Someone posted another edit request after mine and it was accepted. It doesn't seem they did anything to "reach consensus" before posting their comment. However it was a minor edit correcting an error.

I'm "newish" to editing Wikipedia and would appreciate whatever guidance you can give me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggeezz (talk • contribs) 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The people working through editing requests often aren't familiar with the article topic - there's a list of open requests and one usually either starts with the oldest (that's what I do) or the newest request on the page, so the order in which requests are filed isn't always the order in which they are processed. Also, requests aren't necessarily answered by someone interested in the article subject, which means that they might not even be aware of your request. I think your suggestion sounds reasonable so if nobody objects on the talk page you can assume that others agree with the change. You need to make only a few more edits before your account is autoconfirmed (autoconfirmed users can edit semi-protected articles), so I'd suggest you edit a few articles you're interested in (e.g. fixing typos) and then, once you're autoconfirmed, change that sentence in the JFK article. --Six words (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levels

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levels. 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) 14:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. 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) 14:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). 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) 14:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RT (TV network)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:RT (TV network). 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) 14:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. 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) 15:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Mediation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Mediation. 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) 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules

Just a reminder:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Seipjere (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia is an anarchy - what it means is you can try to convince others that it's a good idea to change a rule (that's the catch - it has to be a good idea, i.e. it has to be beneficial for the project). Good luck trying to change WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:CIVIL - until then I'm afraid you'll either have to abide by them or find a project that suits you better (sourcewatch perhaps?). --Six words (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. 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) 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. 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) 18:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Hello. I wanted to let you know that someone suspects you of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox. De728631 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's weird - I haven't had much interaction with Bloodofox. Thanks for letting me know. --Six words (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Homunq/WP voting systems

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Homunq/WP voting systems. 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) 18:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Pending changes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Pending changes. 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) 18:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3. 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) 19:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. 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) 20:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. 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, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on article on Homeopathy

Please answer here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Adding_sources_and_content_to_this_article — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostOfLippe (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. 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) 22:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. 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) 22:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll. 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) 23:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback. 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) 23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. 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) 00:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization. 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) 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite...

... what are the six words? MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"This song is just six words long" (yes, I realise that's seven words - if I ever meet Weird Al I'll have a word with him about that). --Six words (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No need to harass Weird Al - the official title of his parody is "This Song's Just Six Words Long". So it's all good. MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). 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) 02:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (comics). 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) 03:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'. 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) 12:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). 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. — 2A02:EC80:101:0:0:0:2:8 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). 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) 01:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)