User talk:WLU/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8



Hi WLU, I'm curious why you undid my edit on the neurofeedback page. "Revert to revision 345728777 dated 2010-02-22 20:35:45 by WLU using popups)". As it stands now, there is a huge gap in the history. It goes from the story of Barry Sterman, and talks about the huge resistance that AAPB was mounting against the use of EEG Biofeedback, and then jumps straight to 1993 where suddenly, as if from nowhere, the world became excited about neurofeedback, as if the future health conference (an important contributor indeed) was the only event that mattered. This completely neglects my families contribution to the field. Without our contribution to the field, most notably of beginning professional training courses, contributing significantly to research, going on television, and demanding that attention be paid to this important but small new field, then it would have been squashed, as the field of biofeedback was so desperately trying to do to EEG at the time. We fought to keep this field alive, and it grew as a result. If not for our actions, those events in 1993, a full 8 years after our entrance into the field, would not have happened. I can site sources, most notably the book "a symphony in the brain" by New York times science writer Jim Robbins, who catalogs this history. Our training courses featured Dr. Barry Sterman himself as we tried to gain acceptance for this work. I ask you to please consider keeping the text and not serving the people who act so ferociously to write us out of the history books. Our contribution is significant, and although there are many in this field who hate us for our aggressive promotion of this field into a wider acceptance by the world, I implore you not to allow them to write us out of the history books. Not everyone likes us, but our contribution is real, significant, and should not suffer the wrath of something called "popups". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kothmer (talkcontribs)

Are you talking about this edit? Anonymous IP addresses get very little respect on wikipedia, and I can't connect a person to an edit unless they are signed in on an account.
If you are talking about that diff, there were a couple reasons - first, it is almost totally unsourced. Per WP:PROVEIT, any unsourced information can be removed by any editor, and it is up to the "replacing" editor to find a source before adding it. The tone of the edit was a little off as well, which was part of my decision to revert. Thinks like "dramatic results", "sought to gain wider recognition", captial B "Biofeedback", "resistance from the media", "left their careers", and "their story is told [in this book]" all suggest that the edit was less about building an encyclopedia and more about promotion of something. And now, seeing your name and your discussion of your "family", I worry about potential conflicts of interest over this information. Your comments of the field being "squashed" is also a bit worrisome.
However, if the entire paragraph is sourced to "A Symphony of the Brain", then that was my bad and a failing of good faith; my apologies. I will replace the information, but I would ask that you let me rewrite it into something a little more neutral - mostly wording changes, I don't plan on altering the ideas. The main reason I'm willing to use the source is because it was written by a different author - if it were written by any of the Othmer's, I'd be a bit more reluctant. Fields in opposition tend to produce polarization on either side, making it more difficult to choose the "right" way to discuss the topic so it is neutral and representative. Still, I am quite willing to replace the information and if you have any comments please pass that along. I would suggest, given your relationship to Susan and Siegfried Othmer (I'm assuming parents or some other blood relation) that you let another editor work on the sections dealing specifically with them.
One thing you could do to help me though, is to let me know which pages in A Symphony in the Brain are used to verify the text - the name "Othmer" appears 30 times in the google books preview and that's a lot of akward reading to undertake. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi again WLU. Yes, please feel free to lend your experienced hand to making my post more neutral. That was certainly my intent, so if I did not succeed, your assistance would be most welcome.
Regarding the use of my IP to log in, I really wanted my contribution to be judged on its factual reality and the source I provided, not on whether it was or was not written by me, so I felt an anonymous contribution would be best, so as not to raise the wrong kind of attention. I guess my efforts had the reverse effect.
Since "A Symphony in the Brain" is a rather large reference to source, I will find you another. Here is one from a news story I was just e-mailed a few hours ago regarding PTSD: Brain Training to Treat PTSD. In the 8th paragraph down you should see a more concise corroboration of my facts. But of course the book remains a more complete reference to source. If you need more, I will be happy to oblige.
Thanks again for your help. I sincerely believe in the philosophy of neutrality, and I am not trying to put myself at an unfair advantage, but it is just as unfair or more so to be left out entirely, and to pretend, as the current article does, that the public awareness of the field arose as if from nowhere suddenly in 1993, discounting our 8 years of prior work that made 1993 possible. We are a very important part of the history of this field, and there are numerous references to that effect, and yet our name is currently not to be found even once in the wikipedia article. That is also not "neutral".
Thank you very much for your help and attention --Kurt Othmer (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'll get to this in a couple days but right now I'm a bit bonked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Resigning to prevent archiving. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Finally replying. Ultimately your edits should be based on their content but if you're really going for openness, transparency and honesty, I would suggest logging in under your real name, disclosing your conflict of interest and requesting other editors to review them. You'll get into more trouble "hiding" behind an IP address than you would editing openly with a possible COI. Any responsible editor should review your edits based on content and fidelity to sources, rather than who you are, and getting that external stamp of approval means they get to stand without taint. However, you can still attract attention based on who you are rather than what you say - but they would themselves need to justify any edits based on reliable sources as well, so it all nets out in the end. Also note that your contributions can only meet the threshold of verifiability, not truth - but having a source is pretty much the best start you could make.

With my google account I have pretty good access to ASitB, and I'd much rather use a book than a news story (news organizations are notorious for getting science wrong). The best help you can give me is to provide page numbers for the information cited - google books preview lets me see most specific pages but it's difficult and time consuming to read a whole book online. I'll check out the page and look at both sources, see what I can come up with. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AAH heads up

FYI, there's a new paper out on AAH by Niemitz, which may be relevant. I've not had time to read it yet, but I have the full PDF if you want. --Mokele (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the same author writing along the same lines, but with a different spin (can you say multiple papers from the same dataset...), Probably worth citing (it is a review article in a mainstream journal) but I'd still hold off on rewriting the whole AAH page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I just started reading it - the very first sentence is completely, flat-out wrong. Not something that exactly fills me with confidence. I'll see if there's anything worth citing or mentioning, but I'm not hopeful. Mokele (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Cancel sending it to me - I found the free full text [1]. I looked for a bit for another recent review article on bipedalism, but found naught. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic differences in vitamin D metabolism

The section on ethnic differences in vitamin D metabolism was deleted on the grounds that it, actually the first para, was poorly sourced by a 'letter to the editor'. I am a beginner at this and maybe it isn't good enough. I should point out the letter was not intended to stand alone being mentioned mainly because it was the first to advance the argument that lower vitamin D levels are natural in some human groups that I am aware of. However the second paragraph was sourced to a recent symposium address by a MD who is a professor of medicine and a leading authority on, and practitioner of, the use of vitamin D in medical treatment. She gave a detailed rationale for believing that there are differences in vitamin D metabolism among ethnic groups and cited more than one study. How can her views be dismissed? . I checked on the standards for medical claims as you suggested, Dr. Buckley is surely more than a simple primary source, she is a leading authority in the field who is suggesting that the interpretation of the association of low vitamin D with disease may not be evidence of causation especially in African Americans. It seems to me that the vitamin D article should give a little more indication of the current balance of medical opinion and have a few less meta studies which are all but explicitly making claims for the benefits of higher vitamin D levels for everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talkcontribs) 20:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Overagainst (talk) Overagainst (talk)

You've hit it on the head, a letter to the editor isn't good enough (it's considered a self-published source essentially). A symposium address is also somewhat inadequate - it may be delivered by a respectable authority, but it hasn't undergone peer review and been published. Oddly enough, your criticism against meta analyses are exactly opposite of the sources we're supposed to use - meta analyses and other aggregate reviews are considered the best evidence because you are less likely to run into cherry-picking, citing old data or over-extending from the results of single trials. If these views have been published in actual journal articles, I would suggest citing the journal articles. If they haven't, they are not really good sources irrespective of her expertise (per WP:MEDRS). If they are in press or haven't been published yet, then it is inappropriate to publish them here first because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I looked into some of your other contributions and was actually pretty impressed (you need to work on verifying your contributions a bit more, and your tone is a little off) but it they're definitely a good start. I would suggest looking in pubmed and google scholar to look for review articles justifying the same information - if you can find 'em, I would have no problem replacing the information on the page. I would suggest avoiding the "Dr. X said Y about Z" approach though - if an article is in a peer-reviewed journal, particularly if it's a review article, and especially if it's not contradicted by other sources, then you can pretty much say X has been associated with Y. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's some related sources: [2] (fulltext), [3], [4],
Also, reviewing the information itself and Dr. Frost's assertion, that's a pretty big jump for a letter to the editor - cancer in African-American men is due to manufacturing and European-American's don't, all because of vitamin D? Speculative, and with a lot of potential confounds. Also, claiming things like "X needs to be studied more" isn't really a great thing for readers. Personally, I would just leave it out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the use of meta studies in the vitamin D article, it states [5]. In 2005, scientists released a metastudy which demonstrated a beneficial correlation between vitamin D intake and prevention of cancer. Drawing from a meta-analysis of 63 published reports, the authors showed that intake of an additional 1,000 international units (IU) (or 25 micrograms) of vitamin D daily reduced an individual's colon cancer risk by 50%, and breast and ovarian cancer risks by 30%. It will not be clear to many people that this note77 [6] which is sourced to a BBC report not the actual paper, the actual meta study is The Role of Vitamin D in Cancer Prevention [7], was not a meta study of vitamin D supplementation trials but a meta study of 63 observational studies of vitamin D status in relation to cancer risk . Contrary to what the above quoted text says the study does not show anything about the the effect of supplementing vitamin D. Nor do the authors claim that, they say that it suggests supplements could reduce the incidence of cancer, and with few or no adverse effects. The article does not mention any possibity of adverse effects from supplementation at all. Anyone reading the quoted text would believe risks do dot exist only benefits. The authors have only one example of the successful use of vitamin D supplementation Lilliu H, Pamphile R, Chapuy MC, Schulten J, Arlot M, Meunier PJ., Calcium-vitamin D3 supplementation is cost-effective in hip fractures prevention.,Maturitas. 2003;44(4):299–305. This treatment is Dr. Buckleys specialty and she considers it too risky for all but the most fall and fracture prone among the elderly. There is certainly a scientific consensus that there is an association between low serum 25(OH)D and disease however there is not a consensus as to what that association means, as the BBC report on the meta study makes clear at the end, heading No Proof. [8] The article should reflect that lack of certainty among experts. Thanks for the links, could you tell me if this is acceptable as a source, it's a meeting abstract that is not on pubmed [9] Overagainst (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC).
Spaced per talk. Those are actually very, very good points that I would strongly encourage you to make, using the actual published sources - the BBC article shouldn't be used (per WP:MEDRS). I would say that the meeting abstract is not appropriate - our standard for medical pages is peer-reviewed literature. We are not a place to proselytize or publicize new, cutting-edge or otherwise pre-consensus information. Wikipedia places due weight on scientific consensus. It means we have to wait until a study is released (or epub ahead of print) before we can work with it. Basically, as soon as a paper appears on pubmed, we can use it (with caution for WP:RECENTISM]) but until then we can't. Meeting abstracts often do precede actual publication of data, but sometimes that premature circulation turns out to be premature - the significance is less than expected, it turns out the whole N doesn't support the conclusion, whatever. There's far more conference abstracts than there are articles, and with good reason we restrict our sources to articles for the most part. If it's a real finding or substantial review, it'll be published. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of items in Dave the Barbarian

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of items in Dave the Barbarian. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of items in Dave the Barbarian. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Civilization one cover.JPG


Thanks for uploading File:Civilization one cover.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar WLU, that was kind of you. It is nice to see that the article has been calm of late, hopefully it will stay that way. I still have a little more work to do on it, shall try and do that over the next day or two.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: my reversion of some of your very recent PTSD edits

I've reverted some of the editing you did earlier today. Here's why:

Your revision:

'In April, 2010 the American Psychiatric Association will be releasing a new version of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual,[54] ....'

This is wrong. They're doing no such thing in April. Where did you get this idea?

My version (I wrote this entire section, and I'm the process of rewriting the whole diagnosis section):

"On February 10, 2010, the American Psychiatric Association placed online for comment the draft diagnostic criteria for mental illness diagnoses which are proposed for the upcoming DSM-V. After a public comment period closes on April 20, 2010, the criteria will be field tested for two years, prior to final revisions and publication in May of 2013.[54]"

This is not only exactly correct (why were you fixing what wasn't broken?), it also reveals important information not generally known - that the DSM is the result of a protracted, deliberate, thoughtful process, in which field testing to improve reliability and validity of diagnostic criteria is, and has been a key part. This is certainly NOT trivia. Furthermore, my text clearly states that the new version of the DSM will be released in May 2013. This is well known in the professional mental health community, and I gave a reference.

Perhaps you were in a bit of a hurry? (It happens to the best of us.) In any case, I wanted to explain my actions to you.

The rest of your most recent changes I see as clear improvements in the writing. I appreciate that. You seem to have skills in this area. I hope you'll use them freely elsewhere in the article.

Finally, I expect today to finally give attention to your other edits, comments, etc., which are thoughtful and deserving of my careful attention. I may even agree with some of your points (heh heh). Tom Cloyd (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your changes look good, they corrected the errors that I accidentally put in (I misread, my bad). I am going to make a few other changes because parts still read like a coat rack for unrelated issues (and the inclusion of a duplicate citation as an external link isn't a good choice in my mind) but overall I appreciate the partial revert that included the changes I made that were appropriate. The unrelated issues are primarily that the DSM is not the subject of the article, and including text discussing the specifics of how it will be revised (particularly material that will be obsolete soon) isn't helping the reader. If you are concerned about the public knowing about the long, thoughtful process of establishing the DSM, it would be best to put that in the article on the DSM or DSM-V. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WLU. You have new messages at Tomcloyd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your edit at PTSD re: EMDR and eye-movements

I have tweaked this by adding specific page nos. in the source which back up your assertion. One page (63) also points to the source documents for their summary conclusion, which is valuable for some people.

I'm trained in EMDR and have used it for years with great success. I had it myself (but not for PTSD, which I've never had), and it changed my life. I was very involved in the community for years, and while they're quite committed to science-based psychotherapy (as am I), they're also authoritarian and dogmatic (I'm referring to the cluster of people around Shapiro and the her EMDR Institute). I was kicked off their discussion list 3 times for insisting in greater objectivity and less autocracy. I finally walked away in disgust, and have been using EMDR, without eye-movements, for years.

This is a fairly important edit. While I didn't have the exact references immediately at hand, the edit you made today was definitely on my list of important revisions to the Treatment section. I took the trouble to make the citation more specific as insurance against the rabid-pro-EMDR crowd, which I know well. They might should up and re-edit the section. With this citation, that will be hard to do. Good work! Tom Cloyd (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite having an ISBN, it's ultimately a webpage, so I don't know how useful a page number is. I had been under the impression that EMDR is mostly pseudoscience, but it's possible that is based on the eye movement part (the remainder one source seemed to imply was actually fairly close to CBT). Your statements about the community suggests that source was right - nothing induces dogma like failing evidence. If people show up to edit towards a specific POV, the appropriate policies to cite are WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE. It's a pity the Cochrane Review didn't mention the eye movements being useless, but if the position statements say the eye movements are useless (particularly if they cite evidence to back their claims and those citations can be mined) then it is undue weight to push for inclusion. If their claims are now fringe, you'll see evidence of this in the low quality of the sources used to cite the "eye movements are important". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation research

With this sequence of diffs you removed material that I and removed, with justification on the talk page here. Even Verbal has called this source unreliable. Please read the talk page and respond. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant your changes to the lead. It looks good and supports both sides of the issue. SilverserenC 02:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarifying. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish favor granted

In short, the aforementioned edit is misleading and should be reverted or reworded. For one, Its students have recently ranked first place... is misleading, as the author's reference linked to outdated residency board results. The most recent (2009) is here. The columns are as follows:

  • Estado = Mexican state
  • Instituciones Educativas = Educational institution
  • Inscritos = Those registered
  • Sustentantes = (literally, sustained) Those who sat the exam and completed the residency process
  • Seleccionados = Those selected
  • Conocimientos Médicos = Medical knowledge
  • Ingles = English comprehension
  • Total = Total (Medical knowledge + English comprehension)

As stated in this pdf entitled Selection Methodology, prospective residents had the choice of choosing two specialties from a single block, and if selected got one of the two, depending on their ability demonstrated on the exam and how their peers placed. Afterward, students within each block were ranked first to last depending on their point total and that is how their placements were determined.

Although 64.62% of the those who completed the process were selected for one of their desired residencies and an average total score of 66.59 is relatively high, it seems that EMIS was surpassed in both regards by the Universidad Panamericana Sede México (in the Distrito Federal), with 87.18% selected and a combined total score of 69.88. I don't know what criteria the author used to make such a bold statement, but it's not the one I'm looking at. It seems as if he's temporarily blocked so if/when he returns I'd request he either get better references or refine his statement, as per WP:AGF.

Hope that helps! Minnecologies (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, no problem. Out of curiosity, I don't believe we've ever worked on anything together or had any prior correspondence, I'm wondering why you thought of myself for this little assignment? (Besides the {{User es-5}} tag on my profile.) Minnecologies (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse

Hello WLU

Thanks for your helpful suggestions.

We seem to still be beating around the bush on the issue I am trying to raise. I had a look at the history, which only deals with the Satanic Ritual Abuse Panic. While there are some people who were trying to use the panic page to talk about ritual abuse (or multiple assailant multiple victim abuse if we want to use the term that least resembles SRA). They seemed to be muddling the issue.

There does not seem to be agreement from mainstream scholars that there was anything to the satanic ritual abuse episode except a moral panic. The MAMV/MOMV/MVMP terms are seen as synonyms for satanic ritual abuse. Unless you have any mainstream, current sources indicating there's some scholarly interest in this, you're on the wrong page, prostitution of children might be a better bet for crimes including multiple child rapists having sex with multiple children (or Catholic sex abuse cases possibly). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While the moral panic was a moral panic, basically a witch hunt, it does not detract from the well documented (both legally and academically) existence of ritualized, frequently inter-generational incest abuse rings, which are found throughout the world.

Again, wrong page - try incest. Though crimes of that nature are probably ubuquitous but rare, they bear virtually no relation to the SRA moral panic (except perhaps the string of cases in which actual incestuous abuse was spuriously linked to ritual abuse accusations - which was acknowledged to have derailed a serious investigation with nonsense). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The term ritual abuse is used for these. (Although there is a push for it to be called ritual abuse/torture, now, as a result of the prevalence of methods of torture used in propagating the system. That would be both for creation of new "use" members and "user" members as well as the transitioning from one to another, where the tendencies of the group allow for it.) The spiritual nature of SOME ritual abuse cases has been know to take on a "satanic" bent, most likely the source of the knowledge contributing to the panic. This is however no different from "God doing it/being the source" and is in no way limited to the christian paradigm. I don't feel that it is necessary to harp on one particular methodology of abuse ring dynamics, nor do I think wikipedia is a place where we should be making a systemic abuser how to.

The term isn't used for them now, and there's no real uniting theme to be drawn together into a single wikipedia page. The whole "torture is used to perpetuate abuse/create DID alters/suppress memory" has not been substantiated and doesn't seem to be how memory works or particularly meritorious. It's a favourite of nonsense conspiracy mongering that people like to link to Project MKULTRA and other CIA-sponsored nonsense. This is briefly dealt with in the SRA page, see this section. It's nonsense. The only crimes they found actual proof of was child rape where the rapist justified or concealed their actions within a pseudosatanic facade. Again, these are fringe beliefs with no real mainstream appeal; you would have a very hard time justifying them using reliable sources - I know I haven't seen any. And doubly-again, SRA is not the appropriate page for real, verified, reported-in-the-news cases. There was never a substantiation of such child abuse rings within actual cases investigated during the SRA moral panic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You had mentioned the need to do a sockpuppet investigation. Please do. This is my first time taking an active role in wikipedia editing (although I've been reading for years).

I won't bother unless you keep pushing against consensus. If you start editing the main page, particularly without sources to back your points, then I might bother. But otherwise it's a pain in the ass that isn't worth the time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

With regards to neutrality, I am a political philosophy student by training and a bureaucrat by employ. I will be diligent, I'm not looking to write a self help page nor harp on the subject, only inform.

Don't care. Sources are important, not people. Get sources, then we'll talk. Right now the sources pretty clearly substantiate SRA being seen as a moral panic. The page has a LOT of sources already. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry to be such a burden for you, I have little computer science background and this is a bit of a learning experience.

I would love to have a bit of mentoring and if I were to take this on, I imagine I would require it. Let me know if you are up to the challenge or if you know of someone who might please mark them out to me.

My only advice is to review the literature before suggesting or making substantial changes, particularly the more recent ones. I can't seriously be bothered to talk to someone who hasn't done so. Your entire set of discussions on the talk page only resulted in one tangential mention of a source published in the Journal of Psychohistory, a marginal discipline at best published in a journal that isn't even peer-reviewed. That's not worth my time, attention or even the bother of looking it up. I'm sure I could find it, but I would never support its use in the page itself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support.

Kevinofnazareth (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

We seem to still be stalling on the you thinking SRA and RA or RA/T are the same thing. They aren't. The SRA moral panic did huge damage to the study of treatment and recognition of abusies and legal pursuit of perpetrators involved in RA. I guess I will just draft the page and see if someone can help me en wiki it.

As far as I can find there are 2 peer reviewed journal articles that question ritual abuse, one which questions whether it should have its own category within abuse literature and happens to possess a logical fallacy within its opening statement, and the other is but a demographic analysis that lumps them in with alien abductees which, although not directly challenging its existence, is wrought with subtext. Neither of these is published in a peer reviewed journal, so as far as I can tell there is no challenge to RA within academic, peer reviewed or not (while a considerable amount about SRA and the moral panic, for which I have no interest in treating more than including a link to this page, which seems to take on the subject effectively). If you do have any (not SRA) I would like to be able to read them, in order to properly maintain neutrality.

Agreed, the journal of Psycohistory is a rag but given that the systemic abuse of children isn't very sexy (at least not to decent intelligent individuals) there is very little literature on the topic (outside of the court documents, and its prevalence within the development community, which are neither easily referenced nor particularly academic). The article in question however is well referenced and logically sound (although I would be reading it more seriously before using it as a reference given its source and most likely would simply find my own backing for its arguments).

sorry I seem to be having trouble getting the difference across.

Don't worry about your page, it has little coincidence with my topic.

I look forward to your comments once mine is up.

Thanks again for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinofnazareth (talkcontribs) 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

RAT shows every indication of being simply a reboot of the SRA phenomenon, but with so much less buy-in it's not even a fringe hypothesis. The research base is tiny, and the same POV-pushing moron that was destroying the SRA page created the RAT pages multiple times against consensus using sockpuppets. The thing about "ritual abuse" is that there was never a need to create a separate category for it - child rape is child rape; torture is torture; conspiracy is conspiracy; there's no need to combine them into a new crime. The biggest harm the whole batch of nonsense ever did was create the impression that there was something "worse" than child abuse, and then drawing huge amounts of attention away from actual victims and risks. Thanks to the SRA panic, we've now got concerns over stranger-danger instead of incest and rape by friends of the family.
I don't know which two articles you are talking about - either link them, or give the titles, authors and years. If it's by Sarson and McDonald, I'm not interested. They're too fringe to be worth creating an article over.
If you are going to try to create a new page, I would suggest drafting it in your user space as a sub-page, then requesting a review. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just curious :)

Hi, I promise to get back to you soon about the email (disclosure: this has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with activity on Wikipedia)

I'm curious if you have an opinion about this revamped article. There is a lot of energy being spent on this including an AN/I report and mediation that two mediators gave up on. This is what is expected to replace the article that was there. The problem is, at least from what I understand from AN/i is that one side of the debate has discontinued their activities at the mediation. You're really good at this kind of thing so I was just curious about what you thought of this new article that is still under contruction. I totally understand if you are too busy or you just don't want to for whatever reasons. Like I said, I was just curious about what you thought about it, like whether it is in compliance with policies and guidelines, or anything else you can think of. Be well my friend, I'll talk to you soon. Getting too tired right now to think clearly, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries about getting back to me, I rarely have things of import to say anyway.
Ugh, you don't pick the easy ones to look at, do ya? The best principles are, as always, the most basic ones - make sure the sources are new, secondary, high-quality, and cover the different viewpoints. My inadequate understanding of the issues is that intelligence testing isn't quite pseudoscience but is definitely problematic; using them to establish realistic, cross-race realities is at best fraught with difficulties and at worst seen as pretty much worthless for a large variety of reasons (the number of confounding factors alone makes the task pretty unrealistic, let alone the politics and racism involved). I think this is one of those cases where you have to tell both sides (there is/there isn't a difference between races) but I'm guessing the "there isn't" side will come out with the last word. Kinda like creationism and sexism, one side will have most of the science and scientific criticisms, making it more an issue of culture and society than actual science.
I'll leave the window open throughout the day and read through it to see if I can find anything really noteworthy to comment on. One thing I'll note - why is there a separate page for references? There's 70+ inline citations, the refs should be included as inline citations or removed. No need for a separate page. A second is that the genetics section has two primary source citations - usually secondary review articles would be preferred, and if it were an uncontroversial article I would simply remove them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not at all active on this and I'm not a sadist so I will continue to watch from afar! :) I just find that this whole mediation is going against what mediation is supposed to be like. Mediation is refused if editors say they don't want to be involved. This time editors excepted under different mediators, at least this is my understanding, but have dropped out since the last mediator took over, who by the way editors seem to have a problem with this editor being a mediator. So the mediation is almost down to the editors who agree with each other, minus a couple of comments here and there. It all seem very weird to me. I can't tell you why things are on separate pages. I don't understand why one editor was picked to rewrite the article to replace what is there. That really doesn't make sense to me. Also editors that never agreed to mediation are being told to go to mediation to talk out any edits that are disagreed with. Like I said, the whole thing seems weird and out of policy in some parts. Don't waste too much time on this, I was just curious about your main opinion of things like they are now. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Crohnie, you have a point! I've wondered the same thing. The problem with doing this on a separate page is that it keeps the community at large from noticing what's going on. Many editors who watchlist the main page won't have the subpage watchlisted. Each edit should be subject to revision by the entire community, on the spot, in real time, just like on the main page. This practice violates the spirit, if not the letter of collaborative editing. I can understand this working on a very small stub article, or on a small section of some large article, but then it's usually done on the talk page, which involves all the editors who watchlist the article. That's the proper way to do it. Note that when this current subpage is used to replace the main article, every editor is justified in reverting the whole thing on the spot, and per BRD it must not be restored without discussion and consensus regarding each section, paragraph, sentence, word, and reference. IOW it should have been done the normal way, bit by bit. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Mediation is nonbinding, and in my mind would be hard to do in general (in my case because I would immediately start reading about the topic, which would then read to becoming informed, parsing the sources, and from there becoming a biased party). In my experience, by actually doing the research, you end up able to contribute to the conversation and editing, eliminating poor sources and adding better ones, thus adhering to NPOV. The problem with many of these pages is that people come in with their opinions already set, and a lack of willingness to read more on the topic. NPOV says we portray the subject as represented in the sources - the only way to do this is to read the sources. Most people are apparently unwilling. I became the resident expert on satanic ritual abuse by reading literally thousands of pages on the topic - my only criteria is I don't read sources that are never going to make it on the page (but I will parse them for reliability to see if they have a chance to be used).
I could see why a single experienced editor would be picked to rewrite the article - if they showed a willingness to read and interpret the sources that gives attribution and neutrality without giving undue weight to the ones they agree with. In my mind that's a better way to work an article than mediation, one that has worked successfully in pretty much all my experience (satanic ritual abuse, bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, aquatic ape hypothesis, and probably a couple others if I dig through my archives).
I havn't looked into the mediation aspect at all - I don't think I've ever found mediation to be helpful as it's either invoked way too prematurely by a new contributor, or a roadbump on the way to arbitration for an experienced one. You can never substitute for an expert editor who is willing to put in the work and do the reading, and that's the most difficult thing to find given the aggravation they will have to put up with. Were I my druthers, I'd simply clone TimVickers and put him in charge of everything. Not only is he quite a looker, his ability to reference is sublime. I continue to stand by my belief that the best way to sort out any content dispute is a visit to a good university library.
BR, I will only venture in response to your comment, that sometimes it is fruitful to have a complete reboot and rewrite of a page, if for no other reason than to force a re-read by all parties. Not always, but sometimes. Also a big advantage of having a new editor enter the page - a read from top to bottom not only addresses a lot of issues that otherwise get ignored but also most experienced editors can see the neutrality and wording problems right away even without reading the sources themselves. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree. New eyes see the problems in poorly written articles, which are often that way because they often evolve in response to edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(OD) You can get a good idea about how editors feel about this. You can see editors saying they don't like the mediation and will no longer be participating in it. I thought if editors stopped responding to a mediation case and stating so, that the mediation ended. Am I wrong about this? Also, I don't think the editor chosen to do the rewrite is a 'seasoned editor' with only 1,323 edits under their belt. This editor has been here for a long time though, so maybe this is a new account they are using? Like I said, I'm not involved but somethings are really hokey. Thanks guys :) --CrohnieGalTalk 12:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/FAQ

You said something about a sock? Well he edited again.Peppermint Chills 04:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I opened a sockpuppet case after research and his persistent edits.Peppermint Chills 07:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I need your help please

Irritable bowel disease is redirected to Irritable bowel syndrome. I've never dealt with redirects before and can't seem to figure out how to remove this redirect. IBD shouldn't be redirected to IBS as they are totally different. Would you mind giving me a helping hand to remove this? I'd really appreciate the help. I'm too tired right now to go read about it and figure out how to do it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I screwed up and tried to move the IBD back to it's own article but instead I just reversed the redirect. Shoot, I did read up on this and thought I understood it all but obviously I didn't. I have asked for help on this in case you don't see this in time. Oh well, you always tell me to be bold. :) Though this time I think I was maybe too bold since I've never dealt with the move button nor any redirects before. I hope this is fixed before you see this! I hate to have to ask you to clean up my mess again. ;) --CrohnieGalTalk 10:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't really tell what's going on - the issue seems to be relatively simple to resovle though. If IBD is not the same thing as IBS, just edit the IBD redirect to start a new article. The history seems to have been wiped out, all I can see is PatGallacher's creation of the redirect, which suggests that the page was erased by an admin.
Basically, if you want to get rid of the redirect and they are truly different things, click on the IBD page, you'll get redirected to IBS. At the top of the page you'll see something that looks like this:
(Redirected from Irritable bowel disease)
If you click on Irritable bowel disease you'll be taken to Irritable bowel disease with no redirect (the difference is in the address bar, which has &redirect=no at the end of it). Click on edit this page as usual, and you can create it, thus overwriting the redirect.
Based on the discussion at talk:IBS, it looks like irritable bowel disease is another term for inflammatory bowel disease? If so, you just need to redirect irritable to inflammatory. If there's substantial confusion between IBS, irritable BD and inflammatory BD, then it may be worth setting up a disambiguation page. If there was a previous page that got deleted and you want the information back, you'll have to get it e-mailed to you by an admin. When a redirect gets overwritten, it must be basically deleted which wipes out the history. Once you recreate a deleted page, you can't tell what happened, who deleted it, or what the previous contents were unless you have admin powers. I can't really tell what happened since I don't have any Face-sad.svg
If Irritable BD needs to be created, then I'd suggest starting it on a sub-page and moving it over when you think it's adequate.
If you really want some substantive advice, I need to know what irritable bowel disease. A very short bit of digging suggests it's a less common name for irritable bowel syndrome. If it's a matter of redirecting it to inflammatory bowel disease, that's easy too. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Well as I understand all of this, IBD is often confused as being IBS, even Dr.'s have made this error. My first GI couldn't get past the fact that I was previously diagnosed as a kid with IBS and it almost killed me 2001. So this is one reason why I don't think I should be the one to make the corrections. IBD stands for Inflammatory bowel disease not IBS. If you looke at the article Infammatory bowel disease I think you will see that is the case. Having the IBD article redirect to the IBS article is completely wrong. If there has to be a redirect then it should go to the Inflammatory bowel disease article. I have to admit after screwing up the move I did I am too paranoid now to try anything esp. with my strong POV about this. Like you, I can't see who or when this redirect was done but I am guessing vandalism, which I can't prove one way or the other. I just know that these two diseases are two separate things, so they shouldn't be redirected. I'm going to just give up on it with the hopes that someone else knows the difference and makes the correction. Sorry about wasting your time on this. Thanks though, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hm...part of the problem might be the mixing of acronyms and full words - IBD and IBS are both DAB pages, while irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease are both full pages. Irritable bowel disease is a redirect to irritable bowel syndrome. Based on my little bit of digging, I would say that's...not quite accurate. Irritable bowel disease doesn't seem to be defined at all - which might make it a case for turning it into a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. I've brought it up at WT:MED - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Question_for_the_experts, hopefully they can shed some light on things. Right now I'm leaning towards

Irritable bowel disease is a nonspecific term that may refer to:

But we'll have to see. That's a bit WP:OR and WP:NEO for my tastes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll go see if anyone has responded, thanks. IBD to me has always meant Infammatory bowel disease. I don't remember how the page was set us before. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Now, by IBD do you mean the acronym, or the full term "irritable bowel disease"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(od) I mean the acronym. I fear my pov is showing too strongly now and that maybe I should back out of the conversation going on. What do you think? --CrohnieGalTalk 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Redirect it to the page you think is appropriate and see what happens. Honestly, there doesn't seem to be a right answer, or much of a wrong one. What was the reason for the move in the first place?
This isn't a very controversial decision, since it's not like I can find evidence that irritable bowel disease is really associated with either one. Probably the best thing you could do would be just dig a bit and see which one is more associated than the other. If there's no controversy in the medical literature, there can't really be a controversy here. If you're really concerned with people making a mistake, a DAB page might be the best option, but how to distinguish between them is an issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I did a search using IBD vs IBS and got this as a result. Thoughts? Also, I don't think with my strong POV that I should make that bold move you suggest above. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I just got chucked into the google main page, no search results...weird.
I'd suggest using the term "irritable bowel disease", do a bit of digging, and see if you can tell where it is most commonly used. If you're still not sure what to do, why not make it a disambiguation page? If you find sources that use as a term for both, just set up the page as I have above - it may be OR and NEO, but WP:IAR exists for a reason. If scholarly consensus hasn't been reached yet, I don't think you can get into too much trouble over this 'un. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

MKULTRA, Pont-St.-Esprit

I received my copy of A TERRIBLE MISTAKE by H.P. Albarelli, Jr. and I have read most of it. I find the evidence presented therein compelling, and I note that the reviews have been excellent. Based on Albarelli's extensive research, I have added the following to the "Deaths" section of the MKULTRA article:

In his 2009 book, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, H. P. Albarelli Jr. concurs with the Olson family and concludes that Frank Olson was murdered because he threatened to divulge state secrets concerning several CIA programs, chief among them Project ARTICHOKE and another code-named Project SPAN. Considerable evidence suggests that Project SPAN involved the contamination of food supplies and the aerosolized spraying of a potent LSD mixture in the village of Pont-St.-Esprit, France in August, 1951, which resulted in mass psychosis, 32 commitments to mental institutions, and four deaths. In his work as Acting Chief of the Special Operations Division at Detrick, Maryland (later Fort Detrick), Olson was involved in the development of aerosolized delivery systems, he was present at Pont-St.-Esprit in August, 1951, and several months before he resigned his position he had witnessed a terminal interrogation conducted in Germany under Project ARTICHOKE. [1]

Albarelli quotes several prominent researchers, including Edward Tinsley Chase, the author of the original book discussing the Pont-St.-Esprit case (THE DAY OF ST. ANTHONY'S FIRE) who have concluded that the Pont-St.-Esprit poisonings were deliberately caused. John Fuller, in particular, concluded that LSD was likely involved. Disparities between the known effects of LSD ingestion and the symptoms displayed by the Pont-St.-Esprit victims are viewed as likely the result of multiple delivery systems and complete lack of dosage control.

BTW, if anyone can clean up the formatting of my reference, that would be appreciated. Apostle12 (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi WLU, and thanks for fixing the source template...just something I haven't really learned how to do properly. As you may have noticed Tracer9999 deleted the Pont-St.-Esprit material, which I have now reinstated with a hybrid version of what you and I contributed. I believe we should not say that Olson was "thrown out" of the window, so chose to stick with "he exited" as the more neutral course. A few other tweaks....

The Olson story, as I read Albarelli's exhaustive treatement of same, emerges as a rather complex one that is difficult to tell succinctly. Multiple interviewees within the Fort Detrick community alluded to Project SPAN ("Pont" means "bridge" or "span) as having to do with the Pont-St.-Esprit incident. And Olson's presence there during the week following the incident is certainly indicative of some involvement. Albarelli argues that witnessing the suffering at Pont-St.-Esprit was likely the beginning of Olson's later moral crisis regarding the nature of his work for the CIA. Olson's distress was clearly communicated to his wife during the days following the unplanned LSD trip he took with colleagues under Stanley Gottlieb's direction. The chronology of events seems to be:

  • Witnessed the Pont-St.-Esprit suffering in 1951.
  • Witnessed a terminal interrogation in Germany in 1953.
  • Took LSD with colleagues, during which "trip" they reported Olson becoming reflective and "sullen."
  • After the LSD trip, communicated to his wife that he had "made a terrible mistake," which he did not detail.
  • Quit his job on Monday, after the LSD trip.
  • Started talking about state secrets to a number of people, which caused the CIA to assign him a "watcher" to limit the damage and prevent further indiscretions. They appear to have been especially concerned that he would divulge his knowledge of U.S. use of biological weapons during the Korean War.
  • Olson's death occured the Friday following his resignation while at the New York hotel with the CIA "watcher." BTW, after Olson exited the window, the watcher placed a call that was overheard by the switchboard operator. The watcher said simply, "He's gone." To which the recipient of the call replied, "That's too bad." Then the call ended. The watcher changed his story several times as to what he was doing when Olson exited the window.
  • Olson's death initially described as a "suicide."
  • Olson's family devastated.
  • Olson's family learned about Olson's participation in the LSD session.
  • Olson's family initially blamed his "suicide" on the LSD.
  • 1975 apologies from Ford and Colby, along with a financial settlement provided by an act of Congress
  • 1994 exhumation of Colby's body, conclusion that it was a homocide
  • 2002 official family statement concluding that Olson was murdered
  • 2009 Albarelli's book making a clear connection with Project SPAN at Pont-St.-Esprit and Project ARTICHOKE

If you feel inspired, I do feel Albarelli did a good job tracking the story, though the book is not particularly well-edited.Apostle12 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like "exited" because it deliberately doesn't say either one, and it's just a poor word to choose (not anyone's fault, I agree we have to walk a line between saying he was thrown versus he threw himself, or something similar). "Exited" is such an unusual choice of wording that it really, really sticks out in the sentence, and the reader stumbles on it. Unfortunately, I can't think of an alternative! One option would be to say "(X says he was thrown, Y says he threw himself)" but you still have to lead with something like...exited. Bleah.
You really should try walking through the diberri template generator. Pick any book from google books, go to the book overview page, scroll to the bottom of the page and you'll see the isbn. Just copy and paste it into the template generator and you're done! Try it once, maybe twice, and you'll never do anything by hand again.
In your timeline, I assume 1994 refers to Olson, not Colby?
Yeah, I'm very unlikely to read the book - most conspiracy stuff doesn't interest me since there are so many accretions around the actual events you can rarely tell what happened. Plus, it looks like the publisher (for better or for worse) focusses on mostly conspiracy topics. MKULTRA only tickled my interest because a nutjob sockpuppet shoehorned in some nonsense on satanic ritual abuse. Still, if you have any editing, template or formatting questions I'm happy to help, and I'll get around to reading the current version in the next couple days. Thanks for the updates, I think the book is a much better source than any news reports, and appreciate you taking the time to read it! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


I just want to let you know I mentioned you in a discussion at the Crohn's disease articles talk page here. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Our new friend on Talk:Homeopathy

I’ll bet you a beer that User:Skycop12 is another sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey. He shows up just days after Jhingaadey’s last sock was banned, bringing along with him the same long winded posts and immediate accusations of bias. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, could be worth launching an SPI case.
I'm always reluctant to simply dismiss people as a sock without responding in some way - that can justifiably give Wikipedia a bad name. But in most cases (as in this one) pointing to the policies and guidelines don't get you anywhere, and eventually you're justified in ignoring them. I reached that point at the end of my last comment.
Thanks for the FYI on the good Dr's use of socks, I'll keep an eye out. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not yet convinced it's our Indian friend from Karnataka. From the location of the IP, which could be a logged out slip up, it could be User:Drsjpdc, who is banned, lives near there, and believes in homeopathy. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so instead of being one sock puppet, it's a different one. Well that makes it "better" Face-smile.svg WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Soy issues

Thanks for the reminder (unfortunately with my busy day, I am afraid that I forgot your previous message). Anyway, I went ahead and semi-protected both the Soy milk and Textured vegetable protein articles. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues, and thanks again for bringing this issue to my attention! — Kralizec! (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets try a quarter year this time. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WLU. You have new messages at Tomcloyd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spanish source.

I'd be glad to look into your issue, but please forgive me, I'm extremely busy until Friday evening. If this is still a problem by then, then by all means I'll try to sort things out. · AndonicO Contact. 10:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if indeed you want me to help out on Friday, please remind me, as I'll more than likely forget since I haven't had any non-automated messages on my talk page for an extremely long time, and I'm out of the habit of checking it. · AndonicO Contact. 10:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah sorry, I completely forgot to do this. I'll leave a tab open and take care of it asap (most likely tomorrow afternoon). · AndonicO Contact. 23:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy#Subsection regarding MD Anderson CIMER review

I think in your recent comment you quote the Edzard Ernst review and the topic is actually this review, which the IP wants to inlcude. I could be reading your comment incorrectly, but it seems like it's not quite addressing the exact same issue. If I'm right, maybe you'd clarify? If not, please feel free to ignore me... — Scientizzle 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Another AAH source

Just FYI, I was looking into swimming behavior in monkeys and happened across this paper:, which may make a good resource for the page. The discussion of AAH appears on page 14, and takes the unusual view that the traits often claimed to be cause by aquatic life may instead have occurred first and only then led to in an increased tendency of humans/hominids to make use of aquatic habitats. Mokele (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Spanish favor no. 2

True, haven't had much internet access over the past couple weeks. I'll crunch the numbers over the weekend and get back to you regarding the validity of these statements early next week. Minnecologies (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiousity (again!), are you involved with an administrative aspect of WP that involves checking the validity of edits via checking sources? Or do you take interest in this article out of your medical association? I'd be interested in helping out with the former if anything such as existed, I don't spend much of my WP time looking around the admin pages so i have no idea. Minnecologies (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing so laudatory - we're all volunteers working out of our own interests. This particular editor undertook some vandalism on an article I watch, and made a series of other subtly damaging edits to various other pages. I've since just been checking up on his/her edits out of stubbornness and irritation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sorry it's taken me awhile to get back to you, my internet has been permanently reestablished as of yesterday so communication shouldn't be an issue in the foreseeable future. From what I've determined, the statement: However, a careful evaluation of the overall performance (considering the last ten years) reveals that EMIS has the greatest percentage of students in a medical residency program in Mexico is true, considering that of all the medical residency programs that were evaluated continuously from 2001-2008, EMIS/ITESM had the highest percentage of placements at 71.35%. It was only surpassed by the military university, the Universidad del Ejército y Fuerza Aérea Mexicanos (sorry no equivalent English page), which was evaluated only in the period of 2001-2005 and had a placement percentage of 75.98%. Hope that helps! Minnecologies (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Really annoying

Stop hand nuvola.svg

Continually posting and re-posting inappropriate images to an article with no discussion except a reference to WP:CENSOR is, in addition to anything else, just really, really annoying. It's not my fault you don't understand WP:CENSOR, so why should I have to clean up your mess. Stop it, and consider this a warning. Herostratus (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I didn't see that you had to the talk page in tandem with your edit. I don't know how I missed that, and I shouldn't have. I was getting kind of tired of un-discussed revisions to this page, but yours wasn't one, sorry. As to the substance of your point, I will discuss that soon, when I get a chance. Herostratus (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll continue this on the Gokkun talk page. Herostratus (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your comments during the recent SPI/ANI. Although I feel strongly that something must be done about the more concerning types of behaviour at the CFS articles, I certainly don't have the time (or bravery) to take on the issue. I'm leaving XMRV and WPI to others, at least for now. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And there's the rub. The fact that long-term, undecided editors (or in my case, uninformed) who haven't come to the page with a pre-concieved opinion are walking away because of the aggravation, is a terrible thing. I'm not saying I'm a magic bullet, but I do think that if I had the time I could go a long way towards combing out the issues into something reasonably neutral and, if not perfect, then at least disliked by all parties equally. For CFS at least, the issue should be easy, if distasteful, to deal with by nearly anyone. The WPI I know next to nothing about.
What conflicting sides bring to articles that is useful is a list of references to support their points, and attack others. If those references are reliable, they should be integrated as point-counterpoint. What they bring that is not useful is the opinion that one side is right, and the other wrong, and a propensity to edit towards that opinion.
Kicking it to arbcom might be a good option. It's an interesting topic for anyone who is fascinated by medicine, and having a long-term editor with good access to the appropriate sources and a mandate to block, ignore or smack down opinionated, trouble-causing editors would doubtless help the page.
I'm thinking of course, of TimVickers; if only we could clone him. He's like magic pixie dust that makes your problems go away.
Were I retired, single and without cable television or a library card, I'd do it myself. But I know it's a deep pool to dive into, and I'm already swimming in other things that need to be done, here and in real life. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a shame that more editors are now leaving these articles to those with the disease thus a strong POV. That's why I backed out of the discussion about IBD for the most part because my POV is very strong in this area and I don't want to be annoying like I see in others like this. Good luck K in whatever articles you jump into. Just remember to try to find some that are fun for awhile. I had to do this myself for awhile because I was just getting stressed and not enjoying myself. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm enjoying myself a surprising amount on wikipedia these days, even as my activity level increases. Not sure why.
It's funny that we have civil POV-pushing listed as an issue, when this POV-pushing is blatantly uncivil! My only guess is that since the area is controversial and unclear rather than clearly settled, it makes it easier to shove in a specific POV because no-one can point to a source and say "here, this is the answer". Doubtless it'll end up at arbcom eventually, but I don't think this'll be a bad thing. Everyone has good intentions, they just also think they are right, and happen to have near-diametrically opposed ideas about what that means. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect administrators aren't to happy to jump into this is because of all the garbage already going on at some of the hot zone articles like Climate change and Race and intelligence articles and associated articles. I've been just watching these and a lot of administrators are involved in trying to settle things down but they too are destined for a special arb case I fear. I think administrators want to do some actual editing at times and these types of articles are big time sinks. I know one administrator stepped away from the CC articles so he could remember why he was here again, to write articles. Another good administrator has also stepped back from his administrator duties. I have great respect for both of the administrators and understand why they are burned out and taking a break from being an administrator. Oh yea, another one gave his tools back after a long process. This seems to be happening a lot more frequently with the good administrators. I just know you won't see me involving myself in any arbcom messes. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 18:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

See what you think

PMID 15061600 Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl 20:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

No homeopathy. Pity.
Thanks for that, I'll review the full text later today. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments about CFS patients etc. and evidence

I would welcome an independent and experienced editor getting involved in these pages. I came here to thank you for some of your remarks. Also because given the anger around this issue, I felt that it would be better if I left these pages alone and focus on my other interests, and hence post here. However, I was quite upset by some of the continuing comments and opinion here based on hearsay. Can I ask you to reread some of the comments on the ANI, etc. and substitute descriptions like "black", Jew" for CFS patient and see how they sound to you? I hope we would all universally condemn these first two at least. But why then tar all people who happen to have CFS with the same condemnations, with same actions and the same motivations as some continue to do for other people with a common race or religion for example? Any educated person struck down by an illness, especially one where the current medical policy is that there is no cost effective treatment or diagnosis would read widely and research the illness for his or her own sake -- and if already a WP editor, then he or she might be able to take an interest in such pages. And yes, the editor's posting rate might well go up but that could just be as a result of being bed-bound with lots of free time and no longer being able to work 60 hours a week.

Any criticism here on Wikipedia should be based on actual evidence -- and the substantive evidence in this case is quite clear: the content of the talk pages and the dialogues that they contain, and edit content on articles. Even a swift examination of this content reveals that many of these claims made are simply not supported by a shred of direct evidence. For example, do I have a fixed POV? No. Do I always edit to a POV? No. Am I continually "attacking" editors? No. Very occasionally my comments have been more heated than I should allow, but always based on content, WP polices, guidelines and their interpretation, not on any fixed position. Please make similar assessment of the other "branded" editors. So my request is that anyone intending to get involved in the CFS and XMRV related articles should please scan last 3 or so talk pages / archives for the relevant article and form any opinions based on their content and not on hearsay and opinion which hasn't been supported by a single content quote or diff. Thank-you. -- TerryE (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...I won't be that experienced, independent editor. I'm very sure that I could do a good job (if I didn't lose my temper and call everyone involved morons before leaving in disgust) but I don't have the time or energy right now.
As for the treatment of CFS patients being comparable to racism or antisemitism. That's a loaded gun that I'm staring down the barrel of. Here are my comments. I'm sure there are assholes and lovely people who have CFS. Guido den Broeder was, in my experience, an unmitigated asshole who did little but start fights. However, a friend of mine's mother, who is utterly lovely, gentle and pleasant, has also been diagnosed with CFS. It's a vague disorder of exclusion with an unknown and uncertain etiology and a highly disupted set of treatment protocols which really piss some people off, and with good reason since it looks like sneaky victim-blaming from doctors and researchers. Yet for some people, it works. I won't be re-reading any comments because I know the kind of stuff that's out there, and I see both sides of it. CFS patients have had most of their lives torn from them because of symptoms most people won't take seriously. The rest of the world sees people with no visible medical problem and no coherent etiology forming large organizations that advocate for better treatment of CFS - which that large group of people see as belying the complaints of extreme fatigue. So yeah, CFS patients get labelled as "just lazy", CFS patients label doctors as "uncaring assholes who think I'm crazy" and everyone gets mad and sees themselves as justified. From my perspective, this is all a function of the poor research base for all aspects of CFS. Hell, I'm betting a substantial minority of CFS patients have something other than CFS that just hasn't been found yet.
But I don't care about any of that; more accurately, I think there's a place for that as sourced information on the main page. Prominently sourced at that. Guido didn't have to be an asshole about editing, but he was. RetroS1mone was, in my experience, overly committed to the idea that CFS is purely psychological (not as big an asshole as Guido, but certainly as stubborn and doubtless as frustrated). This led to both sides polarizing and digging in rather than accepting compromise and neutrality. And the whole thing was, and is, stupid because the best way to deal with this is again the god-damned sources, of which there are plenty. But no-one on either side seems to see that both sides have heavily documented complaints, and all points of view should be represented. People kept trying to assert a binary position of "yes it's physical/no it's not". Well frankly, everyone should fucking quit it. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CFS IS, HOW IT DEVELOPS OR HOW TO TREAT IT. Suck it up, both sides, until they know more the only uniting theme to the CFS pages is that everything is controversial. Document the existing positions, the counter-claims and criticisms, and accept that you'll have to see your own position criticized, just like you get to criticize the other side.
In summary, I think pretty much everyone is wrong. I think both sides need to back away, calm down, and not ask if the other side is true, but instead remember that we're here to verify, not proselytize. No-one is right, no-one has the answer, and everyone will have to live with that. Guido's lack of compromise cast a long shadow that made it hard for everyone involved to work together long after he was banned. Rather than trying to figure out if X or Y is a good person, ask if their edits are well sourced.
And for the love of Jebus, whenever some new "miracle" (i.e. theory) gets reported, people should leave off trying to present it as a cure. It is going to take decades to sort this all out. DECADES. Sure as hell ain't gonna be next week.
You really want my opinion? Everyone shouldn't review the last three pages. The current talk pages should be archived, buried, and ignored. The CFS pages should be revisited with a fine-toothed comb. The best sources should be kept. The worst discarded. The ones in between discussed to determine whether they are sufficiently reliable to remain. Everyone should start digging through pubmed and requesting sources up the yin-yang. Then build your page, accepting that stuff you aren't going to like is going to end up on the page, but make sure your criticisms are adequately sourced. Start with the body, then work on the lead, and don't write from either the doctors' or patients' perspective. Years ago, I believe I added to the CFS lead "nearly everything about the condition is controversial". I still think that stands, and I think it is the source of most of the acrimony. But everyone has to be grown-ups and admit that the sources take precedence over their own opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered reply. I can understand why you don't want to touch this one with a barge pole. Emotions can run high on subjects like this one. However, I guess that I must just come from a different generation to many editors. I just don't see why we have to be continually abusive to each other. It just gets so tedious. Comments should always be polite and informed by evidence, not hearsay, and the subject at hand should be kept to the article content and the sources which underpin it. When someone makes a point or raises an issue then we should try to respond constructively and directly, attempting to move forward rather than ignoring the dialogue, waiting a few weeks then reverting content back to old positions.
I also really don't see what the problem is with "controversy" if we stick to these principles. Surely if there are two views to a line of research then what on earth is wrong with presenting both in an unbiased, proportionate and encyclopaedic way? Why do we need to massage source content to emphasise one opinion, or to attempt to remove a subset of sources because they are "wrong"?
I also agree that reliving history with a view to retribution is rarely constructive and that a clean slate is often the best way to move forward, which is one of the reasons why I also want to step away from these articles. However, any references to past editorial actions and motives should still be based on actual evidence and not on dogma. I think that you would agree with these principles, as I agree with yours. -- TerryE (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to be continually abusive to each other. A bunch of new editors arrived at the same time. Guido was at that time still active and being a terrible example, as well as polarizing the group through antagonism. People got into habits, settled into sides, and just kept sniping. And you shouldn't bother with past actions if you actually want to move forward. Since both sides have a point, both sides should listen to each other.
Have a look at Talk:Abram Hoffer where I am trying to talk a new editor off of a tall, narrow original research and strongly-held POV ledge. I keep emphasizing the same policy points. Seems to be helping. Or look at any contentious page edited by User:TimVickers. He's an amazing example of a fantastic neutral editor, and one of the reasons I try to edit contentious pages like I do. You could even look at talk:bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, where a single purpose account is trying to push an idea that is no supported by the literature. My approach is again, sources and policies - but since the other editor basically doesn't have a substantial point or the appropriate sources to back up his/her assertions, I also use too much sarcasm.
Guiding principles - what sources are there? How many are there for each point of view? What criticisms exist? And for CFS, what do the patient voices (I would suggest primarily in terms of what patient groups say) say? And finally, in all cases, what policies and guidelines apply, and how do they affect the use of the sources? NPOV doesn't bar one side or the other unless there is only one article adopting that particular point of view, OR prevents people from analyzing the sources themselves, MEDRS gives you a cut-off of quality and type (secondary) that would prevent most primary literature from being used. Keep hammering in those points, and accept that you're going to see edits that you don't like, and maybe the page will move forward. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"New Editor"

I'm the "new editor" on Abram Hoffer. Actually, not so new--I've lurked for years-- almost from the first, in fact. After lurking for a bit, my first posting was in 2006 and some of my earlier posting were on the policy pages. Know the rules and practices here quite well and follow them. By chance, I happen to be an expert on the issue in question-- Not claiming "Trust me, I'm a doctor", but the expert's advantage of knowing the literature and what it means. Unfortunately, " You're just some expert with a POV who doesn't know the rules " seems to be a common straw arguement here on wikipedia.

From my point of view, I am merely trying to inject a little NPOV into another-wise completely biased hatchet job in a quite politicised area. No OR and no POV-pushing. I have provided links, cites ad nausem, to published reviews in the main-stream medical literature. Alas, to no avail, except to be accused of things I am simply not doing, like the above. At the same time other editors get away with murder in the same article. Visit Abram Hoffer for a little go t different view. Drjem3 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just got an "edit war" warning from WLU about Abram Hoffer. IIRC, this only refers to reversions of other's edits and not to modifications of one's own work. Anyway, I'm obviously just responding to issues raised in the now rather voluminous discussion pages, demands for cites and the like. Just like I am supposed to do, after discussion and all. Clearly, I've been sand-bagged--- If you don't want me posting the material you ask for, don't ask for it. Or change my posting after further discussion. I'm really getting tired of this. Drjem3 (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No-one here cares, it's quite apparent you don't understand the rules and if you keep it up you'll get blocked. I've been polite and repeatedly, at length, explained the issues. You are providing the wrong citations. That is the issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand the rules quite well. Anyway, well enough to understand you are misusing them for POV-pushing. There seems to be a lot of that over anything that has to do with "alternative medicine" --- whatever that is, when 17% of all prescriptions are written "off-label". I am just trying to introduce the main-stream view-- namely, that nothing is that simple. Also see confirmation bias.
The view that the medical profession has concerning Dr Hoffer is rather different from the one expressed in the article. Perhaps you are right and the Docs are wrong. But both sides should be presented for NPOV. To give balance to the article, I am merely presenting this alternative view. Well-documented from the medical and scientific literature, naturally. Your are welcome to presenty your own material, naturally. Such one sided-views as you present are specifically-forbidden in biographies, as you well know.
If you do not agree with the citations that I present, argue them, present your own material, etc.. But do not threaten to have me banned for simply disagreeing with you and your posse. BTW, my compliments on the slick way in which you suckered me into inadvertantly doing three reverts. Normally, I would not have done this. But, " assuming good will ", I reasonably-believed you invited me to post. OTD Drjem3 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It is quite obvious that you do not understand the rules, or you wouldn't be breaking them. My issue has been your use of a primary source to push a secondary point, follwoed by a third (or fourth, or fifth) citation to produce a synthesis that should be verified with secondary sources. You obviously do not understand this point, or you would not be making these edits.
If you can represent the views of "medical professionals" with reliable, secondary sources, you should do so. If you consider your own opinion to be a reliable source for this type of information, you are wrong. The view of Dr. Hoffer is obviously a complicated one, with some recognition for his biochemical work, and a whole lot of disdain for the orthomolecular approach he later adopted. Whether the disdain for the approach spilled over onto Hoffer himself, or whether he simply faded out once he entered private practice and started publishing in the echo chamber of alternative medicine, the ghetto of orthomolecular journals or the self-stimulatory avenue of vanity press and fringe publishers, I'm not sure (certainly his publication record ends up being less than impressive, [10], [11] and substantially in venues using the words "orthomolecular"). I have demonstrated why the citations you are using are inappropriate, and adding more inappropriate citations merely compounds, rather than addresses, the problem. The issue is not that high-dose niacin is a valid treatment for hyperlipidemia. The issue is that Hoffer apparently co-discovered the phenomenon, but it was developed by others; though he gets some credit for its discovery, he should not get credit for it being a current treatment modality since from what I can tell, no-one says "Hoffer went on to develop this into an intervention for heart disease". Nor does he appear to be responsible for including a statin. The citations you present, like this one, and this one, don't discuss Hoffer at all - the first doesn't even mention his name in the references, and the second merely cites the 1955 journal article. This is original research. You did not "present" the alternative view, you are attempting to prove the alternative view by saying "Hoffer discovered this, and 55 years later it is now a treatment". That's a synthesis, and a POV-pushing one at that.
I did not "threaten to have you banned". For one thing, a block is different from a ban. For a second, I can't block or ban you - I am not an admin and I don't have the tools to do so. I would submit a 3RR report to the 3RR noticeboard and after a review by an independent admin, they would decide whether a block was warranted. Totally above-board, totally third-party, totally independent of my control. I did not "sucker" you into breaking the 3RR - for one thing, I don't believe the 3RR was broken. For another, I did not make you revert as many times as you did. For a third, you are not currently blocked and indeed, without the warning notice I dropped on your page, you wouldn't be blocked. I am required to give you that warning before I can report you for breaking the 3RR. And for that matter, it had the desired effect - you didn't break it from what I can tell (but I've been busy and haven't edited much for the past two days).
Again, all this demonstrates that you are not familiar with the rules, and certainly not as much as you think you are. When I have time, I will undertake the slow process to gather and use citations about Abram Hoffer to improve the page, and will remove the two unrelated articles about high-dose niacin treatment (as well as the execrable coatrack about vitamin C treatment). We'll deal with it from there I suppose. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

() I just came across this post while browsing, and only read up to the New Editor subsection, since it seemed to go off on a tangent after that. I realize that this may be a moot point by now, but I just wanted to say that I think that if you exclude reaction to the occasional bout of POV-pushing, you'll find that by and large there is no acrimony. Now, I say this right after a bunch of us got a little riled up at the suggestion that the page be renamed to Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, but if anything, I think that's a demonstration of the current editing mindset of the editors of CFS-related pages: there's very much an attitude of hard-line neutrality now, where everyone has really "dug in" to the middle, regardless of their personal POV. The current set of editors don't let much of anything get posted to the articles unless it's very well sourced, or at least debated to consensus on the talk page and proven to meet MEDRS and other appropriate guidlines. Anything that even remotely resembles POV-pushing now gets slapped matter which POV is being pushed (the case mentioned above being a prime example, since it's normally the biological side that favours the ME terminology, and I think it's fair to say that most of the current CFS editors personally lean towards a biological etiology).

My hope in drawing a neutral admin to the article, which seems like it'll never happen, is to once and for all get someone to see that the editors of CFS articles are not the big baddies that a very small number of people paint us as. But what really gets on my nerves is that whenever we "do the right thing" and do our best to maintain article neutrality against the POV-pushers, we're the ones who get accused of wrongdoing. As a personal example, take this edit, which undid 9.5 months of contributions to the article with no discussion and resulted in this re-reversion (and accusation in the edit summary) and this discussion accusing me of the crime that I had actually reverted, as well as a reiteration of supposedly being an SPA. Why did I get accused of mass reversion and being a single-purpose account? Because I undid a single edit that reverted 200 or so edits en masse on an article I had never contributed to previously and had absolutely no opinion about. And people wonder why my user page says what it does. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 01:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the support there, I guess some people are not interested in building an encyclopedia. If you would like a copy of the paper he is 'referencing' I can email it to you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time - I have no doubt that he's merely trying to adopt a veneer of respectability in order to string the community on for longer. There's nothing of merit there, I'm frustrated that s/he hasn't been permablocked, but it'll come. Watch for sockpuppeting, because that should lead to a block of at least a year, if not permanent. The thing is, a legitimate editor who has just made a couple mistakes would spend more time editing and less time edit warring. That 90% of his/her edits are just to insert the same text we know is bullshit, is the best indicator that s/he's here to troll, not contribute. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Thought I would offer though :-) You know, I wonder what motivates people. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think there's actually an essay on that somewhere - try clicking on the links in WP:VANDAL. But irrespective, I'm disappointed a permablock wasn't slapped on, and I'm now playing the DNFTT game. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


So does the ability to pack angels on pinheads depend on the dance? Can they jitterbug or gavotte as densely as they tango? Surely we have an article on this somewhere! ;-)

Angels exist solely in the mind of humans, just like homeopathy. Both should be placed in Category:Fiction. But dancing is real. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey don't knock my allusions of the pretty angels coming to watch over me. <BG> --CrohnieGalTalk 11:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
So long as they don't dance, you'll hear nary a peep from me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
We're fine then, mine just flutter a little. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 20:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

template:cite pmid and ilk

Please do not change real citations to these, as you just did at Homeopathy. These templates are a seriously bad idea. They beg for unnoticed vandalism because almost none of the bot-created editable subpages make anyone's watchlist, whereas the mainspace article is seen by many. Additionally they induce editors to impose what should be article-specific styling choices (for instance |journal=JAMA vs. J Am Med Assoc vs. J Am Med Assoc vs. Journal of the American Medical Association) on all articles that use that template. There's further on the topic at template talk:cite doi and template talk:cite pmid. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm...thanks for the notice. I had thought that they were useful because they sped up the page load for heavily templated pages (and are absurdly easy to put in place). I may get around to reviewing the template talks, in the meantime I'll use diberri to replace the full cite journal templates. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I grant the templates are seductively easy to use too. But they definitely make the wikicode less robust. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Drat! I gave you bad links. Earlier discussion was at User_talk:Citation_bot#Talk page blanking and before that in several threads on User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive 1. Admittedly not the best place. I should probably take the time to formulate a redux with links to all the earlier posts and check if everything said is still accurate. There was a proposal at one time to semiprotect all the subpages, which would help a bit. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the updated links, I'll look into them if/when I have time. May I suggest a section in the talk pages directing to those discussion? And frankly if it's that bad and the community doesn't support them, they should be disabled. As soon as I saw them their utility was so great I started substituting on a variety of pages right away.
I would actually advocate for full protection of all those pages rather than semi - any changes that need to be made should just need it once and you'd be done. Semiprotection still allows autoconfirmed users to edit, which lets dedicated vandals still do damage. Still think it's a great idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the /doc talks about not replacing {{cite journal}} with {{cite doi}}. One option is to subst the template:cite doi once the template subpage has been bot populated, thereby replacing it with the more legible cite journal. That too is discussed on the /doc. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Body Cleansing

I'm sure you're just having a blind spot and have the best intentions in thinking that mercury or lead don't exist, but I've linked to the articles just in case :) The Body cleansing article is a wishy-washy embarassment in an encyclopedia, how can you think it's not in need of a cleanup? Reading it I have no idea what "body cleansing" is supposed to be, just that it's a load of bull, and something to do with colons. I think it needs a little more work, don't you? A cleanup? Perhaps a little slower on the revert button next time? Greenman (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mercury and lead are toxic heavy metals with scientifically well-defined side-effects and means of chelating them from the body. Body cleansing is not heavy metal chelation. It's a pseudoscientific alternative medicine concept - itself poorly designed with a shoddy research base. The "treatments" for body cleansing have not been proven to actually remove anything from the body. The "toxins" are not defined. The "symptoms" are vague and generally innocuous. You are welcome to start compiling resources; being familiar with the claims made by alternative medicine I see it as the same kind of nonsense that colon cleansing incorporates. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Response on Talk:Body cleansing. Greenman (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Trevor Marshall

Rather than revert your change, I thought I would contact you on your personal page to explain why I did so.

Look, you are wrong to lump in Marshall's work with creation science, the moon landing, and other pseudoscience. Why has he twice chaired sessions at the world's largest gathering of researchers and scientists who study autoimmunity? Why has a paper he co-authored been rated a "must read" by the prestigious literary awareness tool, Faculty of 1000 Medicine?

I deleted the Mark London article, because Mr. London misrepresents key points of Marshall's statements. This is a personal page by an uncredentialed person who has done a poor job of researching the Marshall Protocol.

The Marshall article can be skeptical, but let's please use sources of a minimum standard. --Palbert (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to the bottom per talk page guidelines.
The Marshall protocol has a shaky research base. It's presupposition, that somehow bacteria can inhabit human cells, particularly human immune cells, for years, is an extreme claim. The microscope has been around for centuries, the electron microscope for decades. In all that time, no-one has noticed these cells colonizing the cytosol of our immune system? And this is the cause of all disease? And the treatment is low-dose, pulsed antibiotics? Unlikely. Marshall's idea is based on a few computer simulations, a few uncontrolled trials, and now it's a revolution requiring blood levels of vitamin D that predispose one to cancer, osteoporosis and possibly deficiency disease? Also unlikely. It's only been around a couple years and hasn't been replicated. PARITY on medical articles puts it with Linus Pauling's vitamin C-cure for cancer work, biologically plausible to the layperson, but taken seriously only by a group dedicated to it a priori.
If not the London article, some sort of criticism should be appended. Mark Crislip has also criticized the protocol twice on, here and here. I'd be open to including them, but there should be something indicating the ideas are suspect on pretty basic grounds. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Though I appreciate the comments from everyone - I really do, confidence that someone would make a good admin is the best one you can get around here - it's simply not going to happen right now. The many votes of confidence are flattering, but ultimately futile at this moment. Thank you to you all though, it's better than a barnstar! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Low level laser therapy

HELP! I have no idea how to engage in a discussion with someone called WLU who made changes to the LLLT pages. I clicked on the WLU talk page and find myself here. I am tempted to erase all changes to that page made this year but suspect that is bad wikipedian behaviour. I need someone to hold my hand so I can do the right thing but how do you let me know you have read this ? all I can think to do is give you my email address and ask you to contact me. <redacted>@<redacted>.com and tell me what to do next. frustrated with not knowing how do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academia salad (talkcontribs) 10:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to bottom of the page per talk page guidelines.
I'm WLU, you're on my talk page. Leave me messages here, but if you're really looking into the LLLT article, you need to post a message at talk:Low level laser therapy. My most recent posting there, about the number and types of sources used, can be found here. Indeed, reverting would be bad behaviour, particularly since I've articulated why the changes would be problematic and why I made the changes I did.
You should start by reviewing my comments on the talk page. Then you should read the core content policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view. Perhaps what wikipedia is not as well. And because this is a medical article, it is very important to read the guidelines on medically reliable sources. Pay particular attention to the section on primary, secondary and tertiary sources; for medical articles, we should be focusing on secondary sources - review articles and textbooks. That's the basis for my changes, if you're looking for more general information about editing wikipedia you should try the simple rules, the tutorial, and perhaps the essay I wrote for new editors.
You have not said why you want to erase all my changes - I would suggest bringing it up on talk:LLLT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, just curious but did you notice that you got autoviewers rights? I did too. :) The flag revision stuff is on it's way. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know what it was until I looked it up just now. Flattering!
Looks like they've implemented tiered editing. I remember that being a big controversy years back, guess they've given in. Makes sense, but I'd still like absolute power to block at will. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses

Hello! Your edit on June 12 to Medical Hypotheses added a ref name "Bad Science" without adding an actual source. Would you please revisit the article and add the source you intended? Thanks. - Salamurai (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. Fixed it - was a reference to Ben Goldacre's work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


Please note an additional revision; I condensed the first paragraph in "Controversy" because it was a bit redundant. Instead of two sentences repeating that investigators failed to prove Livingston's hypothesis (re:PC), I threaded it one segued sentence/first paragraph. I think the article reads well overall. Ronsword (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at it in a bit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
And also please note a few suggestions concerning the "Clinical Testing" section, and particularly, statements made by Cassileth as per her NEJM article. Tnx Ronsword (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, again I will look into it when I make the time.
Please review the talk page guidelines and particularly conversation threading. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AZT and all that


I'm not sure either of us has really understood Bruce's central concern, but you might be interested in the note I left on his talk page (I started writing before your edits). I know it can be frustrating dealing with misguided contributors – and I'm sure you've done it many, many more times than I have – but please do try to be as civil as you can. I think Bruce's intentions here aren't fundamentally that different to yours or mine, to the extent that unlike a vandal, spammer or company hack, he's volunteering his time to make what he believes to be improvements to Wikipedia.

Anyway, on a completely unrelated note, the new talk page system I mentioned last night is liquid threads. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I normally don't mind dealing with people pushing a POV. In fact, disputes tend to produce a better page - more thorough, better sourcing, clearer wording, and for FRINGE stuff, more clearly supporting the mainstream opinion. But BS' twofold complaint (HIV/AIDS is unsustainable on wikipedia because it's unsustainable in real life, and the lack of real names somehow is part of the problem and the conspiracy) is so baseless on scientific and wikipolicy grounds, it actually angers me. I loathe liars who conjour science to grant credibility they haven't earned; freeloaders who adopt the garb and pretenses of science without substantively engaging with the methods, rigor and self-correcting community that make science actually worth something. He doesn't understand. He's read something he likes, and is now using it to try to drub something into wikipedia, something so patently recognized as fucking nonsense, someone actually wrote a book about how it's fucking nonsense. I think BS' intentions are very much both fundamentally different from ours, and fundamentally opposed to several of wikipedia's core policies and guidelines (FRINGE, UNDUE, NPOV, MEDRS for starters). Bruce is wrong - simply, flatly, unambiguously wrong, when it comes to HIV/AIDS. He, and everyone else who believes what he believes, are not just wrong (creationism is wrong and pisses me off, but not to the same degree) but are fundamentally culpable for the decimation of a continent, the rape of children, unnecessary wanton suffering and death, all because gay sex makes them feel squicky or they're afraid of an unknown (which is now known).
I consider my discussions quite civil - in none of these sorts of frustrating conversations do I use the words "fucktard", "ignorant cunt", "goddamn murdering retard" or "dipshit arrogant sonovabitch who should go out and catch AIDS and try treating it with vitamins, you shitforbrains moron". I'm pointing out that his POV-pushing contributions and suggestions are both misleading, misguided, misunderstand some of our (admittedly esoteric) policies and some freely-available science which really isn't that difficult to grasp. And rather civilly considering both how I feel, and how utterly wrong he is. That he's trying to take a didactic approach rather than simply and plainly identifying the purported problem is also irksome - unjustified arrogance pisses me off (justified arrogance I can handle). If BS manages to make his "improvements" on wikipedia, it will demonstrably make things worse - and do so in the only lying way any AIDS denialists can. By misleading the public through the adoption of a facade that has been co-opted from something truly great. So fuck him.
End rant.
I appreciate that you're trying to educate him. That's important - either he'll stop pushing a totally unsupported bullshit ideology (which is good) or it'll be the start of an accumulation of evidence that concludes with him being permanently blocked from editing. I don't care either way, so long as he never touches an HIV-related article again, and stops wasting my time on talk pages as well. You're doing good here, and I heartily approve. Personally, I've reached my limit (actually, that limit was passed in April). The patient attempt to explain just why he's wrong should be done. But not by me, and I don't think it'll ever change his mind. Doesn't matter, eventually with enough rope he'll hang himself. The superficial explanations for his edits, improperly justified by reference to misinterpretations of policies, indicates he's not here to improve wikipedia, learn our policies or play by the rules - he's here to edit towards a viewpoint. I've tried explanations with heavy reference to the P&G, and it didn't help. Now I'm done and all I want is that his edits and points are revealed for their utter lack of justification.
OK, now the rant is over.
Thanks for the liquid threads comment, I'll try to understand what it is (a quick browse didn't tell me much and the videos aren't loading up in a useful way right now). And congratulations on your first publication! I envy you hugely - I edit wikipedia as an informed amateur because I lacked the wherewithal to get an advanced degree. A peer-reviewed journal article is something to brag about :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
All I meant by the intentions comment is that, whereas vandals, spammers and corporate hacks know what they're doing is evil but do it anyway, pov-pushers at least believe themselves to be on the side of the light, however wrong they may be. But I understand AIDS denialism is a very wrong and very, very dangerous ideology, as 300,000 South African ghosts can attest. I'm also interested in the misuse of science – I follow Bad Science and Butterflies and Wheels – though the people who really make my blood boil are those that deliberately use their talents for cold, calculated evil.
The idea that underlies my interactions with new(ish) editors, including the problematic ones, is that if I can encourage just one contributor who would otherwise have left, been banned, or whatever, to instead become a productive contributor who then goes on to benefit the project the same amount that I have, then I've doubled the net benefit my existence has had on Wikipedia. You're probably right that Bruce won't change his mind about HIV/AIDS, though my (possibly naive) hope is that because we've had positive interactions previously, and because I edit with my real name, he won't see me as part of the cabal or whatever and will at least consider what I've written. FWIW, I'd somehow neglected to watchlist Bruce's talk page and hadn't realised where he was coming from until this week. I actually feel quite foolish for my earlier endorsement of Inventing the AIDS Virus... Guess I'm so used to thinking science articles just need copyediting and that NPOV is an issue for articles on companies and people, it hadn't even occurred to me he might have been a denialist.
Anyway, thanks for the congratulations – though I fear they may be premature! I need to convince the journal editor my work is interesting, plus 2 or 3 reviewers that it's scientifically sound. Fingers crossed. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 07:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I love Bad Science, but one of the few blogs I check daily are and Respectful insolence. I highly recommend them. Also, if you haven't read it, Goldacre's book of the same name (which really just collects and expands on some of his articles) is delightful. As is Gary Taubes Bad Science about cold fusion. I'll definitely check out butterflies and wheels.
I used to be a problematic editor (check out the archives of Talk:Terry Goodkind) and I was redeemed, but I also managed to read the policies and realized that my actions were problematic. IM(ns)HO if they don't show any indication of reading and understanding the policies and guidelines in short order (and BS goes a step further in that he tries to game the policies) then they go into the same bucket as spammers and vandals. Believing yourself to be doing good, when you're clearly, clearly, clearly not (AIDS denialism and creationism are so clearly absurd, and so easily revealed as such, that anyone who bites of that apple deserves poison) is a notion that needs rapid disabusing. With prejudice. If you haven't realized just how god-damned stupid these topics are with all the easily accessible, easily located, easily read resources on the internet, you're not going to change your mind and you shouldn't edit here. I continue to approve of attempting to work with BS, but I'm still not the one to do it. I wish you luck, but you may ultimately want to take it to e-mail as that's almost certainly a long slog. If you haven't already seen it, this page seems about as handy for AIDS denialism as the index to creationist claims is for creationism.
I'll cross my fingers for your paper and hope for the best. I'm assuming it's in mycology? If you know of a good popular-level book on fungus, I'd be intrigued. I just read The Omnivore's Dilemma and was fascinated by it's discussion of mushrooms, mushroom hunting, and that the mushroom bears as much relation to fungus as an apple bears to an apple tree. Epic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Just a note to say thanks for de-spamming the iodolipids stuff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I may have been overzealous in my trim of other pages so I'll go back tomorrow to check. But yeah, the stuff being inserted by Venturi about Venturi was excessive speculative spam - the book I found gives idiolipids a very speculative role that looks like it's just starting to be explored. Dubious whether it's important enough to be in the iodine page at all. Thanks for the review, it's always appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Master Cleanse

Great job rewriting Master Cleanse! Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, particularly considering I mostly deleted stuff. If you're interested in that, you may want to check out body cleansing and in particular the talk page - I'm thinking of merging all cleansing/detoxification/enema/quack diet pages together into detoxification (alternative medicine), and would love some comments and opinions.
Of course, if I had my druthers I'd simply flush every single detox/colon cleansing page on wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Alternative Names for CFS

If you have time, I'd appreciate your input here. If you don't have the time/inclination, don't worry - I understand. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fucking hell, again? Fucking hell. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I could have said it better! ;) --CrohnieGalTalk 16:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand people get strong opinions about their conditions - he says to the account named after a diagnosis! - but you don't get to rename or edit something simply because you agree with it. I wish I could write "Verifiability, not truth" on a stick, and mail it to people to hit themselves with. Suck it up, they're still not sure what CFS is - and that's something we'll have to live with. Everyone, myself included, is looking forward to the day when they figure it out.
I can see why you don't want to edit the CD page much, though I'd like to think you'd do a better, more neutral job. Have you had a look at helminthic therapy lately? I tried digging up some sources from pubmed (many of the ones I looked at were flawed - primary and popular mainly) but most of the ones I found were references to, y'know, how these worms are disease-causing parasites. Still, they use maggot therapy for wounds. Just 'cause it's gross doesn't mean it's wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey is this a dig at me? "he says to the account named after a diagnosis"  :) <jk> Though I have gotten attacked for my user name before which is sad to me. I will look at the article. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Helminthic therapy

I disagree with your removal of external links from the "Helminthic Therapy" article. It's true that the therapy isn't FDA approved yet but over 200 people have already tried helminthic therapy with excellent results and clinical trials are taking place all over the world. The external links you removed contain a lot of information regarding this therapy. Please explain why you think these links shouldn't be there. If I don't hear from you, I'll revert the edit. Thanks.OmegaGX (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, external links should be either reliable sources or "knowledgeable sources". However, since this is ostensibly about a medical topic, both MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS apply - and it has a section on external links that is pretty restrictive. Since this is very much a prospective therapy, not yet FDA-approved, there are no truly medically reliable sources (review articles published in medical journals - at least none that I could find on pubmed, and the research base seems to have dropped off more than a little).
I removed five external links:
  • - this is a short webpage about the hygiene hypothesis, not helmnithic therapy specifically, that contains no references and numerous advertisements. WP:ELNO points 1, 2, 5, 13
  • - this one is pretty lengthy with a lot of sources - it would be the most likely to be included. Yet still, it promotes the therapy; there is no official site, no CDC, NIH or FDA sites about it. This is really the nub of the problem - as an unproven, unapproved therapy, every single website is essentially a promotion tool of an either pseudoscientific, or protoscientific concept (depending on if it's ever proven or not). The worms are parasites, and it's not proven that they actually help.
  • - this appears to be essentially a personal webpage (ELNO point 11). It also portrays it as "well supported" - which it doesn't seem to be. Again, no websites from official, important, recognized medical bodies saying "it works!"
  • - this was a different weblink that pops you to the wiki. WP:ELNO point 12 - no wikis.
  • - this is a single page that is basically a list of references in a larger website, and that larger website is not about helminthic therapy specifically. ELNO point 13.
The overall issue is the types of links that are lacking - nothing from the CDC. Nothing from the NIH (in fact, there is a link to the NIH website, but it's about how the worms infect as a parasite and should be treated - it's in fact a misuse of the source per WP:OR). Nothing from the FDA. No Mayo clinic that I could find, no Health Canada, no major universities or other research centers. Just a lot of personal webpages from true believers. True believers are not reliable sources - at best they are places where sources could be found and included in the page itself. It comes down to these pages being essentially testimonials with (in some cases) references sections.
I would suggest bringing this up at WT:MED since this is a lengthy, referenced page about a prospective treatment that's not totally rejected but not yet proven either. In general, the page shows signs of being written for and by advocates rather than for readers of an encyclopedia - it seems to promote the viewpoint that helminth therapy is already proven when it's still undergoing clinical trials. Large sections that are unsourced yet summarize complex topics. Lengthy section titles that don't mesh with MOS:TITLE. Inappropriate advice. Summary of single studies. Comparisons to other therapies. Citations to single universities. I'm thinking of rewriting the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, fucking again

I would like to know why WLU erased the following text added to the bioidentical horomone page Definition of the Word Bioidentical

Firstly, the word, Bioidentical, is well-defined by the Miriam Webster Dictionary [2] as "possessing identical molecular structure especially in relation to an endogenously produced substance <bioidentical estrogens>". Secondly, "bioidentical" is defined by Wiktionary as "identical to that which is naturally produced by the body." [3]. The Endocrine Society Position Statement on Bioidentical Hormones definition is: “Bioidentical hormones” are defined as compounds that have exactly the same chemical and molecular structure as hormones that are produced in the human body. [4]. This statement is also endorsed by the North Amerca Menopause Society. [5] These sources are in agreement that the word, "bioidentical" has a well defined meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigventersmonster (talkcontribs) 16:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably saw some of the reasons on your sockpuppet account talk pages but I'll restate them - WP:MERDRS, WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:OR. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard notice

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bioidentical_Hormone_Page_Very_Biased_and_Locked_up_by_WLU. Fences&Windows 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Because I'm secretly Sarek's other, non-admin account. I hate people. Not you though! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


When I added the paper the PMID was not out yet. Thanks for fixing that. I am not a big fan of controversy sections ( unless there is a well documented controversy movement ). It has been clear that statins have little to no benefit in primary prevention for at least 7 years. The evidence of course is good for secondary prevention. Thus not controversial. I will work on it in a couple weeks when I return.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

'K, thanks. Whenever I read "it's a conspiracy" I almost always assume "it's not a conspiracy, but it might be complicated". Such was the case. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR report

I have processed your report of at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please take note of this advice. CIreland (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Already commented, yes it's both good advice and common sense. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Agree that some form of topic ban may be warranted, but suggest WQA may be a first step in dispute resolution-- I am completely swamped in real life, don't have a working computer in my new house yet, but will try to help out next week. Let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I hadn't thought of that. So far LG and myself seem to have this more-or-less handled, but we'll see what happens when protection expires. Please use your judgment - there's not really much reason to stop important work to deal with this.
One thing I'd really like would be a copy of the recent Medical Letter article. Can you help a brother out?
These are the same arguments made by many previous POV-pushing accounts, so I know what to expect and what my replies will be. I'm hoping they'll get bored or do something stupid, and that'll solve that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Does that mean you have a non working computer there? Strange priorities! ;) Verbal chat 11:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Forced labor

Ok, you succeeded to make the section less choppy, thanks. I struggled a bit with it when I made it but didn't have the energy to fix it. I'm just concerned that you have eliminated the bits about the effects on the forced miners, the deaths and invalidity that were inflicted on them.--Stor stark7 Speak 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

My problems with those items were that they were numbers for a very specific time period, with no real extrapolation over the years; it was 500+ injuries and 10 deaths for the first quarter of a single year; though possibly representative, we don't know how representative and if things got better, worse, or didn't change. I think we could reintroduce the numbers (but they would absolutely need to be contextualized to a given number within a very limited window) but I just don't know how useful they really are. If they had rates of killed/injured over a year, or several years, or even better, the duration of the operation of the mine, I would include them without hesitation. I did consider putting them in but ultimately didn't know if they were sufficiently relevant, useful, informative and accurate enough to truly help the page. I'll admit it's a judgement call that isn't very clear-cut. All pages are a balancing act between level of detail and page length - see WP:SS. The most accurate way of working with sources is to simply quote them at length throughout each page - but obviously that presents copyright, readability, print and page size issues as well as making wikipedia something other than an encyclopedia. With sufficient length, another issue you face is undue weight. The amount of weight to give an issue is a tremendous judgement call, and one that requires an understanding of the specific issues within the overall context of the topic. Imagine the JFK page that either discussed "his death in 1963" without calling it an assassination, versus one that spent 80% of its text discussing the minutiae of assassination conspiracy theories. Both are problematic and both need be dealt with differently - expansion for one and an enormous cull for the other (with an option to spin out into a secondary article). UNDUE requires experience and knowledge, but also compromise. I'm guessing the issue you are facing is you seem to believe there were substantial flaws with the conduct and outcome of WWII; extended to enough pages, without an acknowledgement of the main, and countering opinions, and it looks very much like POV-pushing to portray the Allies as the villains of the war. Perhaps that is your goal (in which case there is a huge problem) and perhaps that is simply your interest (which is less of a problem but requires more work with other editors to ensure the context and mainstream opinion is represented as the more prominent opinion) but no matter what you have to work with, and listen to other editors. Particularly other editors with more experience. See WP:MASTADON, WP:DICK, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COMMUNITY, WP:DISPUTE, WP:NOT, WP:STICK and particularly the myriad see also links of STICK. This is rich coming from me - I love having the last word. But it's still good advice and a way of navigating the community such that you're not seen as a loose cannon ramming a POV into articles, and instead seen as attempting to integrate underappreciated but valid comments into articles.
Of course, if you are truly here to ensure that the "right" version, hitherto blocked from view by the Jewish media/Mafia/anti-German lobby/Islamaphobic West/Yellow Peril conspirators, becomes the mainstream as demonstrated on wikipedia, you need to read WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG, WP:TRUTH and probably stop editing. We are all about the mainstream here, but we do allow dissenting opinions if reliable and contextualized. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Taken by Force

It certainly looks neater and much more professional, thanks. Will you be willing to keep an eye on it to save it from vandalism?

Keep in mind what vandalism is - a deliberate attempt to worsen the page. That may not have previously been the case. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

Some comments on things that were not completed.

When I added the review I had directly quoted 2 parts from it: "extensively researched and referenced" and provides "rich, detailed and objective analysis". The later part was deleted by one individual calling it "copy edit".[12] Why did you not reintroduce it? It would think a reviewer calling the book "objective analysis" to be one of the more important aspects of the review.

Why would I? We have to choose a balance somewhere between quoting the entire review and leaving it out completely. Radeksz may have thought the detail minor and excessive. That looks like a valid copy-edit and judgement call to me. The referencing is more important than the analysis for some people. Objectivity is much more in the eye of the beholder than referencing. You have to choose what details to include without undue weight on a single review. If you want to make the case that that particular detail is necessary, I would suggest doing so on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

Another deletion that occurred was the deletion[13] of this paragraph: "When his French publisher tried to raise interest in an English version of his book "one well established US editor said 'I wouldn't touch that book with a ten foot long pole'", another responded with "how dare you publish a book like that about American soldiers!" Lilly goes on to cite an article in the Guardian by Cambridge University historian Richard Drayton that refers to his book and a 2006 Daily Telegraph article entitled "Wartime GIs went on rampage of rape and murder" as examples of a background re-evaluation of GI behavior in the ETO that led Palgrave Macmillian to publish an English language edition of the book."

That section lacks a reference to verify it, making it an acceptable WP:PROVEIT move. Also, it is sourced to a preface which makes it less reliable than the body itself. I would be reluctant to use that information without access to the book itself. I could see incorporating those details, had I a copy of the book; given it is Lilly's own opinion, it seems worthwhile. But I could also see myself making the same edit, with PROVEIT as a reason. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

This is an important aspect that you neglected completely, what was the reason for it being published in english eventually? What had changed. This aspect is completely missing in the current version.

The book has 2 prefaces, one translation of the original French preface by Fabrice Virgili (who also researches in the same domain). Virgili notes that the book was published in French in 2003, and in Italy in 2004.

In the English preface Lilly notes the following on page xxi (i mix direct quotes with summaries).

In connection to the Gulf war, and Americans eating "Freedom fries", etc, his Publisher (Payot) tried to get interest for publishing in the the US but got rebuffed.

"Several US publishers echoed these sentiments when Payot attempted to raise their interest in an English version of my book, 'La Face Cacheé Des GI's' (The Hidden Face of the GI's). One well-established US publisher said, 'I wouldn't touch that book with a 10-foot long pole,' while another disparaged Payot with 'How dare you publish a book like that about American soldiers!'

On page xxii he relates how public attitudes were influenced by the strong impact of the book "The Greatest Generation" and "saving private Ryan", while less glorifying movies such as the 2006 "Flag of our Fathers" had a weak public response and notes that perhaps his book was "perhaps the wrong book at the wrong time". He notes that since 2003 thousands of US WW-2 veterans have died and it is easier to find a readership in the US.

Also on page xxii he relates to the article by Jamey Keaten "Historians looking at U.S. GI's after D-day" which "discussed my book".

On page xxiii he quoted the article by Drayton, e,g, the bit about "we too are considered an army of rapists".

Also on page xxiii he notes an article in the Telegraph 24 April 2006 entitled "Wartime GIs went on rampage of rape and Murder"

He sums up with "It is against this evolving background of re-evaluating GI's behavior in the ETO that Palgrave Macmillan were happy to publish Taken by Force in an English Edition".

If you are going to include this, be sure to reference it explicitly and treat it carefully - this is not a blunt-force item. A mixture of quotes and summaries clearly attributed to the relevant author may work, but personally I would have to read it. My local university library has a copy, I will try to pick it up soon and review for inclusion. Part of the problem would be a lack of an explicit citation, but part could also be you appear to have a bit of a hair-trigger temper and some strong opinions that cna leak into your edits, and both burn through the good faith it takes to integrate the material you add in a more encyclopedic and neutral manner. We are a community, you need to work with, rather than against editors. I can't comment on the material itself without reading the prefaces, and will try to do so soon. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

I would say the direct quotes from U.S. publishers are quite notable here, and they are now lacking.

It looks like to me, that Lilly is the one making statements about the publishers, making it more tenuous and requiring a different attribution. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

I think it is also highly relevant to mention the reason why Lilly thinks he finally managed to publish in English, i.e. that there is an ongoing re-evaluation of GI-behavior.

Undue weight on the opinion of an author about his own book, would be a concern. At this point, your suggestions would probably give more text to the book talking about itself than either third-party reviews or a synopsis - which is again an undue weight issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

Also, the article by Jamey Keaten that discusses Lillys book, and that Lilly mentions in the preface, and to which I also had a link in the external links section before it was deleted, first from the main text[14], and then from the external links by you[15]. Why did you choose not to restore it at least in the external links section? --Stor stark7 Speak 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The external links section is not a holding place for unused sources, though lots of people use it for that unfortunately. That should be used as a source, if reliable. I'd need to see a copy of the source itself to give an opinion on how to use it.
But I overall do caution about including so many details from the preface of the book about the release information. I'll try to comment more after reading it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

help please

The megadosage vitamin C for cancer says that it is not usfull in humans. This article is from 1969. Since then it has been shown to slow and even eradicate cancer. The NIH even has articles about it. I am tring very hard to understand and obey all the rules that go with Wikipedia, but it is completely against all that I learned in school not to use primary sources. Where there any sources that could be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasaterpd (talkcontribs) 17:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there any secondary sources supporting the view that vitamin C can treat cancer? I'm not familiar with them. A medically reliable source would be required - a peer-reviewed journal article reviewing the research on the topic. Not permitted are books not published by highly reliable publishers (i.e. they'd have to be a high-quality university press), random webpages, anecdotes, or non-peer reviewed journals. The claims for vitamin C treating cancer have been tested before and come up short. Though there is now renewed interest in the topic, approached from a different angle, the results are not yet out and the basic science isn't considered particularly promising. It's quite possible that wikipedia shouldn't treat vitamin C as a form of chemotherapy - because it's not - despite being promoted as such. And frankly, if your goal here is to promote that viewpoint, that's not a good thing per WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAP. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this set of edits,
  • there is considerable misuse of primary sources, and syntheses of those sources to promote a viewpoint.
  • the article is about vitamin C megadose, which has nothing to do with deficiency discussed in the NHANES source
  • Hunninghake is published in the journal of orthomolecular medicine - which is pretty close to a quack journal - and low vitamin C doesn't mean megadoses are a treatment, that's a nonsequiter particularly considering vitamin C is just starting to be researched as a treatment after being found useless in previous tests
  • that oral intake is limited while IV is not presupposes it's useful as a treatment and Chen is a primary source bit of bench research which doesn't necessarily translate to full-on human research and I don't believe the vitamin C foundation is a reliable source
  • that vitamin C via IV isn't toxic again doesn't mean it's effective
  • basic biochemical information about the similarity between sugar and vitamin C is again irrelevant to the actual treatment of cancer without results actually backing it as being effective. Lots of things are biochemically plausible without being effective on the human scale
  • overall, again, the orthomolecular approach is seen as unsupported, based on faulty reasoning and poor science
All of the information is contrary to the mainstream opinion that vitamin C megadose has not been found to be a useful and effective treatment method. It's been tested, and didn't help. Maybe the new round of studies will change this, but right now it's considered unproven. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Many of the older test done, were done with oral dosages of vitamin C, which is why they did not work. This includes NIH, the first test did not work, now they have gone back and now say vitamin C does work. Here is a link to one the NIH news stories: [16] I will find a list of peer reviewed journals. Would this information be better suited under the alternative views pages? We all write about what we are interested in and are exposed to. I have a background in science, so I will not be writting about history. I feel that saying "vitamin C is usless" is not a fair statement to make and would like to share another view. Thank you for your helpLasaterpd (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I've heard the rhetoric about it not being a fair test. But what hasn't been proven, what is still merely speculation, is that there's any effectiveness in it at all. The tests are being done now. Predicated in your response is the idea that it is effective, but a) hasn't been fairly tested and b) should be assumed until otherwise proven. That's a truth statement, when wikipedia is based on what is verifiable in reliable sources. Loading in a lot of primary sources to buttress the idea that it does work, when really it's more like "possible speculative research on rats and cell lines may support the idea of doing a preliminary investigation that could possibly lead to treatment even though we tried something similar and didn't see even an incremental difference" isn't a good idea. I know there's believed, by some, to be a difference between oral versus IV dosing. I also know it's not yet proven. Vitamin C simply isn't used as chemotherapy. Perhaps, one day, it may be. But right now - it's not. It's still theoretical, and until the results are out, the page should give the mainstream opinion - that vitamin C prevents scurvy but there's no reason to think huge overdoses are useful for anything in humans - rather than what theory could possibly lead to in the future. Humans aren't mice, and cells may die when given an overdose of nearly anything - they're isolated islands of limited resources. They're not people. The orthomolecular belief that a little bit is good therefore a ton is not just better, but actually GREAT is illogical and unsupported. Anyway, the page should appropriately say "vitamin C is believed to help with X but has either been tested and failed, or not been tested". It certainly shouldn't be proven to be useful for anything but preventing scurvy and possibly acting as an antihistamine.
Also note that IV vitamin C has been tested more recently (2008) and failed [17]. In fact, it may actually worsen cancer outcomes by interfering with chemotherapy [18]. Anyway, it's generally considered an unpromising area of research that has already been tested and failed; there may be new clinical trials ongoing, but they're not done yet. They should be portrayed simply as ongoing, not as "promising". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I think WLU's giving you good advice here. The overall goal is to present the current state of mainstream knowledge as being the current state of mainstream knowledge. Wikipedia isn't really the place to present cutting edge/latest-and-greatest/expert speculation/paradigm-changing ideas. Wikipedia's goal has much more to do with what the majority of oncologists tell their typical patients right now, not what a couple of researchers say about a single rodent study in a press release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
And I should add (to Laseterpd), because I tend to be a dick about these things and I shouldn't be, that I appreciate your asking questions rather than edit warring over the information. My objections to date about the info and speculation are based on the current knowledge. If those prospective trials come back and it turns out high-dose vitamin C is helpful, wikipedia will do its usual job of outrunning Britannica and other encyclopedias to note it. That being said, there are several reasons to see the information suspiciously - animals that generate their own vitamin C still get cancer. There wasn't even incremental benefits seen for patients on high-dose vitamin C. Millions of years of evolution lie between humans losing their ability to generate vitamin C and the present, suggesting strong evolutionary pressure to make up for any negative consequences of losing the production ability. And finally, many of the people supporting the intervention tend to adopt a priori assumptions about vitamins being inherently good and risk-free, in the face of a dearth of evidence. I know Linus Pauling was supposed to be a smart man, but he wouldn't be the first Nobel winner to go on to embrace something radical yet unsupported. A Nobel Prize is not the scientific equivalent of Papal infaillability.
A brief summary of why people think vitamin C might be useful could be included in the page, possibly - but based on highly reliable sources in mainstream journals - not the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I will see what I can come up with in the next couple of days. Would it be best to do a seperate section titled alternative views or potential benefits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasaterpd (talkcontribs) 20:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not without violating WP:UNDUE and WP:CRITICISM. The mainstream opinion is that vitamin C is not a currently used chemotherapeutic agent and shows little promise. It is still being investigated, but there are many sources from mainstream organizations and journals that are explicit that it has, to date, failed all relevant tests in humans. The very best we could manage is to point out people are looking into it, but even that is problematic since it's still preliminary. We are supposed to summarize the scientific majority consensus, not predict the future. I firmly, firmly believe the best way to deal with this is to note the previous tests and include a brief, bare mention of its current exploration as an intravenous intervention - and not to add a lengthy section on how it might work, how many current interventions are being investigated, how it wasn't fairly tested in the first place, etc.
If you are planning something lengthy, I suggest using a sub page. If you are planning on only something quite short, I would use the talk page so more editors will see it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


My username is Stor stark7, not SS7. Please stop calling me SS7, I consider it uncivil. Thank you.--Stor stark7 Speak 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? You contact me on my talk page over a short form for a pseudonym? Really? I don't consider it uncivil, didn't mean it to be uncivil, and now don't care. I had taken the book out from the library, now it looks like I'll be returning it unread. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If you're referring to "Taken By Force", then the book may very well still be worth reading, if for no other reason than to make it easier to ensure the relevant article stays neutral.radek (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I was essentially reading the book as a favour to what I thought was a well-intentioned editor who could use some advice. Now, considering his edit count and this - interesting is the most polite comment I can come up with so - interesting...comment, I'm thinking the problem is one that can't be corrected by experience, time or advice. So I'll just wash my hands of this and walk away. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Kent Hovind

Ha! Though given the context, probably tastes like stale crap being reserved for the zillionth time. DMacks (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fresh for me 'cause I haven't responded to this particular point before. Probably for all other readers of the talk page - ya, I'm guessing you're right.
I just finished listening to a lecture on how the Bible/New Testemant was written, it was pretty sweet to be able to use it. The fact that I got to throw in a reference to Looking for Dilmun was just icing on the cake.
None of this, of course, makes up for having to watch Kent Hovind's "debate". Nothing can make up for all that stupid. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dietary supplement

Hi, perhaps you can take a look at this article: Dietary_supplement#Common_uses. In my opinion, there's too much quackery in that section. Thanks in advance.-- (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that was pretty bad. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg

Hello. I've tried more than once to bring a neutral tone to the article on Peter Duesberg, and each time you have removed my edits immediately. I know that it's human nature to believe that our own beliefs are the unbiased truth and that the things we've never thought to question are beyond question. But all POVs, even thos far from mainstream should be presented fairly before being rebutted. Peter Duesberg and his views on AIDS have been rejected, dismissed, ridiculed, laughed at, spit upon, demonized, punished, and chastized by the scientific community, but they have not been disproven. I am assuming good faith efforts on your part, that you're making the changes because you sincerely think he's unquestionably. But please stop squashing a dissenting POV and comparing us to holocaust deniers. The "scientific" community is as driven by politics and conformity as any other group of human beings, and thier "consensus" has been wrong before.

ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

AIDS denialism is considered paradigmatic pseudoscience, and Peter Deusberg is one of the leading advocates. This is well-sourced, well-established, and an approach well-supported by WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Deusberg's views have in fact been reviewed by the scientific establishment, and have failed to be supported, contradicted by decades of later research - which is very much why his views are compared to holocaust denial and creationism. The scientific community has been "wrong" before, but that doesn't make Duesberg right, particularly when it has been pointed out that he cherry picks his evidence, quote mines and misrepresents the points of others' research. Duesberg's opinions are informed by something other than pseudoscience. He is not a Galileo, a brave crusader for an idea that hasn't been properly considered, or proposing a valid alternate formulation. He is abusing science. Well sourced, well established, and that's the reality of wikipedia. There are AIDS denialist wikis that exist, if you want to expound upon Deusberg's misunderstood genius, you'll have to go there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Editors unshakeably convinced of their own rightness, determined to smear and silence anyone who does not agree with them; that, sadly, is the reality of Wikipedia. I will stop wasting my time attempting civil, reasoned discussion with you. You may go ahead and have your precious last word now. ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
And if I were asserting simply my opinion, I would be a problem. However, since I am summarizing the facts of highly reliable sources, your point is less than compelling. Please stop wasting my time indeed, if you can find reliable sources that don't give undue weight to a fringe opinion, then we can talk. The reason why so many editors are convinced, is because there are so many god damned sources substantiating the point. AIDS denialism is not science. They try to make it look like science, but if it's not.
If you're actually leaving wikipedia, just leave. Don't bother telling me about it, I don't care. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Please do not use {{otheruses4}}. Replace with {{about}} and delete {{otheruses4}} because {{otheruses4}} is deprecated. (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh, when did that change? Noted, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheese puffs

Sorry about my edit; it was indeed a mistake, and I've self-reverted. Thanks for pointing it out. --Macrakis (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trotter Prize (Texas A&M)

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trotter Prize (Texas A&M), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trotter Prize (Texas A&M). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Socratic Barnstar.png The Socratic Barnstar
For this very eloquent comment. You said every thing I want to say, much better. Sole Soul (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I stood up and applauded when I read it. Anthony (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm...I said a lot there, which comment specifically? Not to toot my own horn, but it was all pretty awesome Face-smile.svg I'm guessing the "experts should have the sources"? Seeing as every single friggin' scientific article starts with a literature review, there's no excuse for relying on bare opinion.
But thanks very much, I appreciate it. I was just looking over my barnstars last night thinking I hadn't gotten one in a while! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to points 2, 3 & 4. Anthony (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
In which case I'm going to post this barnstar on my barnstar page twice, since those were pretty Epic Awesome :)
I'm very, very surprised that this isn't explicit somewhere. "Just trust me" violates OR, RS, V and almost certainly NPOV, and completely fails on logical grounds (scholars normally do have access to pretty good libraries). If it's not part of a policy already, it really, really should be.
Sigh. No-one takes vaccine denialism as seriously as me... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The vaccine bit was good! Good. But, you know... it didn't make me salute. Anthony (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I shouldn't be saluted, just questioned and forced to verify. But I'll still take the barnstar! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Soy POV pusher back

Whoops, sorry about that! Somehow I totally missed your message. Regardless, I processed the request at WP:RFPP and applied a six-month semi. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Massive redaction of Core synchronism article

WLU, based on what criteria did you delete nearly all of the content and references for the Core synchronism article? Nothing untrue was stated in the article as it existed before your edit. It spoke of models and views which you might not agree with, but a number of people do. Is that legitimate cause for removing nearly everything? Did you mean to delete nearly everything or just to add an opposing viewpoint? The latter seems appropriate and, in my understanding, in the spirit of the wikipedia undertaking. Dln108 (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Therapeutic touch and other types of "energy medicine" are seen as pseudoscience lacking proof. The article made medical claims, putting it under the purview of WP:MEDRS, which requires reliable, secondary sources - of which there were none. Core synchronism has not been tested from what I can tell, [19], [All%20Fields%20AND%20synchronism[All%20Fields]&cmd=DetailsSearch], making it just hand-waving assertions that have no basis in actual research. There were links to articles and sources that appeared to be synthetic, bringing together sources that don't mention the topic of the page itself in order to advance a conclusion. It looked to be little more than a puff piece designed to promote a methodology that has not been tested, verified, or demonstrated to be based on realistic principles. My edits were based on WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAP, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE and WP:ENC. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It sure is lacking any proof but imho the article made it pretty clear what it is about and I do not see any claims of medical wonders. Richiez (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you please look again at it, I am by no means an advocate of any kind of healing powers but I like to have a description of all such stuff in the wikipedia. Richiez (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any new reliable, peer-reviewed sources on the topic? People see wikipedia as a place to publish the truth, but it is an encyclopedia. Think of it this way - what would you expect to see in the Encyclopædia Britannica? I wouldn't expect to see much since it is essentially a novel and thus as-yet unpopular commingling of several different types of pseudoscientific disciplines. So new that there's not even any criticisms of it to be found in skeptical sources. As such, a suitable context can not be given in relation to mainstream biology, physics, chemistry or medicine. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I see it as completely outside the scope of natural science and want an overview what it is, cultural background and such. Consider a doctor whose patient tells him he was doing "Core synchronism".. the poor doctor might want to know something about it. The only criteria for me is notability. I would not in my dreams try to compare the effectivity of core synchronism with bromocriptine and afaics the article did not try to do that. It sure needs a few fixes (like removing the "medical therapy" in first paragraph) but overall I would assume good faith on the part of the user who did create most of it and hope he can improve it with a little guidance. Richiez (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is outside the scope of science, but you can't portray it as such - you need reliable sources that do so. If it's cultural, then slot it into the appropriate article on cultural practices - with reference to reliable sources. Again, if it's very new, it's quite possible that it's too new and a neologism. And right now there's a lot of sources that seem to make original research claims, and syntheses. Also, both the article and pages like this belie your claim it's not medicine. I've re-stubbed it. Frankly, if it combines ayervedic medicine with craniosacral, it's a mash-up of two pseudosciences - which can be notable, but probably not yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Basically, what is the best source for what CS is? Is it Stevens' 1995 book/webpage/pamphlet? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed it has only few google hits outside the US but it has a few, hence it appears notable enough for me. Looking at the google hits it has been around for some time. The page you linked ([20]) does not appear to be part of the article, not the revision I am viewing right now. If someone outside wikipedia claims medical wonders it is a problem but not ours and you can not judge the article by this. You would not judge the article about Aspirin by looking at Bayer ads, would you?(want that the wonderdrug from...?) You seem to be doing OR yourself - you are not responsible for determining which 2 pseudosciences are meshed together here. I would expect every (not just the average) wikipedia reader to know what the article is about after reading a few sentences like "The movement of cerebrospinal fluid is related to the expression of the conscious life principle in the same way that the tidal movement of the ocean is related to the moon.[2]". Its hilarious to try to find pubmed citations on this. Finally why are you accusing the sources of doing OR? This is what sources are for. Richiez (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Source "7" is really crap.. how can anyone ever cite Kellogg as a source. Should not be necessary to nuke the whole article because of this? Stick the usual fact templates in places where sources are unacceptable.Richiez (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Notability has a specific meaning on wikipedia - see WP:N. Random google pages, particularly those linked to people who practice it, don't count. Has to be something like a newspaper, book by a mainstream publisher, etc. Must be a reliable, secondary, independent source (or set of sources). I can't actually tell what some of the sources in the previous version were - source one, is it a book? A webpage? Googling the title turned up the webpage you asked about. Aspirin has a massive history in both popular and medical culture so your comparison is valid and serves to underscore that as yet, the CS article isn't even close. There are limitations to what we write articles about.
As for original research, "core synchronism" doesn't seem to appear once in reference 2. Reference 3 doesn't mention core synchronism in the quote, and it's unlikely to be an appropriate reference given the source used and the numerous other inappropriate "citations" in the page. References 4 and 5 are not really references, and even if they were, it's unlikely an 8th century text would reference craniosacral rhythms or therapy - unless someone is saying it was actually talking about CST, in which case you can't use the primary source, you need a secondary source making the link. Reference 7, published in 1905, has a similar issue. The Book Publishing Company isn't scholarly press that I can tell, and the "research" section says there isn't any. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think it would be better to base the article solely on the book by Stevens as long as there are no other references. Richiez (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
So that's a book? If that's the sole source the article can be based on, a book I can't find on amazon and can't get an ISBN for, then the page should be deleted for failing WP:N. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not involved in that kind of alternative medicine so I do not want to judge notability but it is my impression that people are practicing it so I am against deleting it. Richiez (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not our opinions that ensure articles are deleted or not - it is WP:N. If you want to ensure the page is not deleted, you need to review WP:N and find sufficient sources that demonstrate it passes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A mangled mess

[21]. Yuck. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you propose as an alternative? The lead is meant to summarize the body, the statement is already pretty short. I think it reads fine but you are always welcome to put in a WP:RFC or WP:3O. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What was there made sense to me. What's there now seems to have a lot of problems, not the least of which are grammatical. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't suggested an improved version; the previous version implied that Park criticized the award for being given to multiple individuals when he was clearly only referring to Dembski. I see my changes as shortening, tighening, and focussing the criticism to be precisely about what Park's criticism was about. Also, Park didn't (generically) "criticize the award" then went on to say it was given to a pseudoscientist. Park criticized the award for being given to a pseudoscientist. Do you have a better option? I frankly don't see one, but am open to ideas.
If you are talking about it being "attempt" rather than "attempting", I've made that correction and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Though, of course, you could have simply done that yourself instead of dropping a general complaint on my talk page, with no specific reference to what the actual problem was. I make mistakes, I know this, I actually include that in my edit notice, and would rather see it fixed than wait for me to correct such an innocuous and obvious error. It's not like there's nuances of policies to be addressed, the source of most of our disagreements. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I did more than suggest an improved version, I implemented one, the version that you mangled. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Park is only criticizing the award being given to Dembski. The title of the opinion column is "Trotter Prize: an award for overlapping the magisteria" and it opens noting that at a meeting of Park's group they discussed science and religion as being “non-overlapping magisteria”. It then says
"But at Texas A&M they see it a little differently: the Trotter Prize is awarded for “illuminating the connection between science and religion.” How better to illustrate the overlap than to give the award this year to one of the nation’s top pseudoscientists, Dr. William Demski..."
So it seems pretty clear that it's a criticism of the award in general for overlapping magisteria and uses Dembski as a key illustration of the ideological disagreement. What makes you think that Park is only concerned with Dembski?
The grammar remains problematic, but if we can sort out what the sentence should say, I'm optimistic we can figure out how to do so appropriately. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
He only mentions Dembski, he doesn't even mention Dembski's co-recipient. Thus, it's pretty clear that he's concerned with the award being given to Dembski. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You haven't addressed my points or why you think Park is concerned only with the award being given to Dembski. It's okay to acknowledge you made a mistake and to fix things. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
You don't read that as totally inherent to Park's criticism? Park is only concerned with Dembski getting the prize because Dembski is not a real scientist. His whole issue is that Dembski, not a real scientist, not a real philosopher, barely a theologian, and an advocate for a completely bullshit idea (not even an idea, a political strategy - seriously, read the verdict, it's quite solid and thorough) is getting an ostensibly scientific prize for his work on intelligent design, and is even described as "one of the nation's top scientists" which is wildly inaccurate considering he's not a scientist, and if he was he'd be a terrible one. I don't believe I've made a mistake - Park is criticizing the trotter prize for being given to an inherently bad choice, and that is his criticism. You could argue he's criticizing it for unjustly overlapping science and religion - but it does this by giving the prize to Dembski. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi, how's it going, hope all is well. I think you may have an interest in this. I think it's all about your discussion you had there so I'm surprised no one brought it to your attentions. If not interested just ignore. I just felt you had the right to at least make a decision about whether you want to comment or not. Take care of yourself and keep in touch. --CrohnieGalTalk 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I commented. I can see why I wasn't notified, no-one is questioning my action, and it's mostly about SA being punitive with someone he has a content disagreement with. I understand the impulse of M8's original comment, and SA's objection to both the comment and M8's POV and approach to editing acupuncture, but I think both are off-base. So far no-one has removed my resolved tag.
As you've probably noticed, I am having a bit of an aggravating week - but my edit count is soaring!! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I just read your talk page. Boy oh boy are you having a frustrating time. I also saw the comments at MastCell's page a few days or so ago. Keep up the good work. If you have this many people screaming for your head I think you must be doing something right. :) Talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Much as I agree with you, it's also the reason experienced editors pack up and leave. I really wish CPUSH would get some weight behind it.
Did you see my comment at Jimbo's talk page? It was apparently well-received. I got that barnstar above for it! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did, good job! :) I actually read it through the barnstar's dif because I don't have him on my watchlist. With what you're dealing with, the barnstar comment should help you keep your sanity a little while longer. :) Keep it up, it's been an interest read for me so far, esp. since the vulgar level is down which means your not too upset, yet. <wide grin> --CrohnieGalTalk 10:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR on William Dembski

You and Freakshownerd are brushing up against WP:3RR. You need to cool it for a bit.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, thanks for the note and I am done for the day as far as reverting. I may still edit other parts of the page, but we'll see. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Freakshownerd's obstinacy rivals a brick wall

I posted this over on his talk page in an attempt to get him to seek uninvolved editors' input, but it was deleted without comment, unsurprisingly. So if I may, I'll offer you similar advice to go file a WP:ANI report on him and get a wider community opinion on the situation. If he keeps calling you "disruptive" and a "vandal", I think most others will take a very dim view of that. Good luck. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I did notice that, see here. I think blocking is a bad idea, but banning from these pages might be worthwhile. The frustrating thing for me is that we're actually getting to some of the real issues that could lead to genuine improvements of various pages - but my version of things is almost certainly not getting read. Whatever, I've been pissed off before so I understand the impulse. I won't bother listing it at WP:DRAMA unless it spills over into mainspace again. It's a time suck and it's rare that it results in a meaningful dialogue. Frankly, until we both understand each other's perspective we're not going to move forward. I'm grateful I now see and understand the specifics of his/her objections, even if his/her policy-based objections are, in my mind, inappropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh good. I find it hilarious that we both used "meh" within minutes of each other. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I personally owe it to you to admit that I was incorrect and out of line saying that you 'vandalized' the Peter Duesberg page, because your incessant edits don't strictly meet WP's specific definition of "vandalism". My beef with you is that you're on a determined campaign to push your POV. And I know you've said before you're not a POV-pusher because in your mind, you're basing everything you write on "reliable" sources. But your definition of "reliable" conveniently supports your opinion on the matter, and you call sources "unreliable" if they're in the minority and disagree with you. PD is not some clown building perpetual motion machines in his garage, he's a well credentialed biomedical scientist; holding an opinion that is very unpopular does not suddenly make him a 'crank' or 'unreliable'. You say that you strongly (in italics even!) adhere to WP's editorial policies. Fair enough, I'd like to know what WP's policy is on situations like this, where a strongly opinionated editor is (in good faith) systematically removing information he happens to disagree with--and declaring sources 'unreliable' or 'crank' on the bases of being unpopular and contradicting his own views. Would you say that Geoff and Margaret Burbridge, prominent and often-cited astrophysicists, are a couple of 'cranks' because they are Big Bang Theory dissenters? Or DENIALISTS??? ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not in my mind, in the mind of the scientific community. PD, as far as AIDS is concerned, is exactly like a clown building a perpetual motion device in his garage - he does not research on AIDS, and ignores the science. The definition of a reliable source is well understood, and the definition of a WP:MEDRS is even more so - and none of Duesberg's work even comes close, in addition to being explicitly labelled as incorrect pseudoscience. You call my definition "convenient", well isn't it convenient that every peer-reviewed publication on the matter supports me? That every statement by a scientific or medical organization supports me? How convenient...almost as if every reasonable scientist and doctor believed HIV causes AIDS...OMG CONSPIRACIEZZ!!!!
You are welcome to bring my actions up at WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:EA, WP:WQA, WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:RSN, any of these places (or WT:RS, WT:MED, WT:NPOV, WT:MEDRS for that matter). They will universally agree with me. You know why? Because the sources support me, and it is easy, trivial to substantiate my point. Because Peter Duesberg is an AIDS denialist and a crank. He's not "unpopular", he's wrong. You can't compare people who are engaged in actual, evidence-based science published in peer-reviewed journals, like Geoffrey Burbidge, with Duesberg, whose only legitimate work is with cancer. Or perhaps you can, I don't know just how much of a crank Burbidge might be. Depends on how obvious the evidence is that their opinions are rejected by the community. In Duesberg's case, it's incredibly obvious. See if you can find anything where Duesberg's opinions on HIV/AIDS are taken seriously, and I'll see about giving an analysis. Medical Hypothesis doesn't count, nor does a popular article interviewing him (i.e. Discover). Nope, real science. Duesberg is a pariah because he purports to do science, but doesn't. So stop wasting my time - put your money where your mouth is. Go do some research. That's the only way wikipedia will legitimately change - if you can turn up real scientific journal articles written by Duesberg that indicates his opinion isn't just ignored. If you can't, my actions are justified. If you can, then possibly the page can change. Tah! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like it when people mistake you for a woman, perhaps you shouldn't conclude your tirades with "Tah!" Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonsAdvocate (talkcontribs) 00:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to be mistaken for a god-damned idiot, you should avoid associating with Peter Duesberg's ridiculous, consipracy-fueled, ascientific, disproven ideas. not SLP1. Obviously.
I'll be clear - you've never produced a reliable source to support your point, on the other hand the idea you're opposing has extensive citations. You're wasting my time, and doing little but pleasing yourself because no-one else cares except for similar people who have no familiarity with the scientific literature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, WLU likes it when he is mistaken for a woman.[22]. Just a thought! Tah!Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's hot. And there's only one thing hotter... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


Way back in January you were involved in a discussion wherein was raised the possibility of generalizing many of the points in MEDRS to science articles generally. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science-related articles) is currently in the final drafting stages before asking the community to accept or reject it as a guideline in the next week or two. Your input would be most welcome, as would any other editor's. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


I have reported your attacks on a BLP subject you disagree to the appropriate noticeboards. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The convention and courtesy is to normally leave a link, I'll check your contributions though. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have explained to you repeatedly why attempting to disparage article subjects you disagree with is inappropriate. When the attacks on content are to bias them against living people whose view you don't favor so as to make them look bad, that is is a clear a BLP violation. I have provided bolded quotes of the actual policy page on my talkpage in response to another editor. I am not interested in discussing it with you further outside of the appropriate noticeboards. I believe you are trying to disrupt my work here and to antagonize me, and further communications from you on my talkpage, other than and official and required notifications, are quite unwelcome. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have generally found your comments to be too vague for me to find helpful or resolve disagreements. There have been exceptions, which is why I am attempting to discuss with you. For instance, the accusation that I am engaging in BLP violations - please show me where I have done so, as I do not believe I have ever made a BLP violation though I have added sourced criticisms to pages of certain figures. If we can't discuss on your talk page, please tell me where we can. Please pick a venue, and please be specific. You claim "clear BLP violations" - obviously not, otherwise I wouldn't make them and other people wouldn't disagree. There is nothing "clear" so we need to discuss. If I am not permitted to talk to you on your talk page, how on earth are we supposed to resolve disagreements? So please, pick a message board, or agree to use talk pages with substantive discussion. Actually discuss with me, and agree to use conflict-resolving mechanisms like WP:3O or WP:RFC rather than edit warring and vague statements on talk pages. Revert warring using edit summaries just pisses both of us off, and when I've been able to figure out exactly what specifically bothers you about an edit, I've either addressed it or indicated why it's problematic. That's useful dialogue, rather than acrimony and generalizations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I explained myself at the BLPN and ANI noticeboards, and quoted the exact parts of the relevant policy on my talk page. I would prefer to discuss the issues there as I get overwhelmed on my talkpage and going round and round becomes disruptive after a certain point. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind discussing here, but better is on the relevant talk pages. I've pointed out that the parts of the policy you are quoting do not unequivocally support your assertions that I am engaging in ongoing BLP violations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


Good morning, WLU. Freakshownerd has included you in a report at ANI; see WP:ANI#Kww and WLU. Best, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on William A. Dembski. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Codf1977 (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WLU. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
Message added 17:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Screw it, I'm out.

I simply can not waste my time with Kwami anymore, especially since he's clearly abusing his admin position to promote AAH. I've de-watched the AAH page, but if crap gets bad enough, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Mokele (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for letting me know. I'm surprised that Kwami is consistently willing to entertain notions about the AAH as if it were a serious theory, but he has never misused his admin tools and still sticks to sources. So, the page has stayed in its current, imperfect but at least relatively negative state. What can you do? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Adopt me:)

Hi my name is Fabiola and i am in a school proyect. it would be awesome if you adopt me.FabGalvez (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is a student who ran into difficulties, and ended up triggering a slew of DUCK calls, as it were, but s/he is not a classic sock, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Meh, if they're really interested and get unblocked, they can come talk to me. Thanks for the clarification. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've unblocked, BTW. See User talk:Thelmadatter#Multiple Accounts 8-) . -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll modify my note on Fabiola's page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks... any help you can offer would be quite appreciated! If I remember correctly, you helped out the last time I worked with my English students in WP about 2 or 3 years ago.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

thank you for adopting me

sorry for the problems and thank you for adopting me.≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabGalvez (talkcontribs) 03:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, do you have any questions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

  • If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
  • If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.
  • You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Non-scientific "scientific article"

Hi, WLU:

I have sort of fallen off of the Wikipedia editing wagon, as I am just trying to stay afloat as a self-employed person right now, but someone pointed me to a page that I think needs some serious scrutiny, because it purports to be a scientific (medical) article, but it isn't following any of the rules for same, and is dangerously biased and unclear--especially the diagnostic criteria are horrible!

I wanted to get someone who knows what they're doing onto this, and I figured you were a good person to start with. If you have some time (or know someone who does), maybe you could have a look?

Here's the page: Orthorexia nervosa

Thanks, and take care! Leha Carpenter (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Does look a little suspicious, I'll have a gander at some point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't mind if they have some kind of "teasing" term or whatever, but it shouldn't be billed as a medical condition--it's just a rather limited type of obsession, if anything, and it gives the impression that anyone who has to monitor their diet is bonkers. Diabetics and people with food intolerances fit the "diagnostic criteria" as well as people with psychological problems. Leha Carpenter (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Whenever I see a term that's defined by a single person, I get skeptical. I may just gut it if I can't find any real sources on google scholar. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. At the very least, if it's just a euphemism, like "workaholic," it shouldn't have the construction of a medical article. Leha Carpenter (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Betrayal & ResearchEditor... overenthusiatic removal of content

Hi, I noticed that you removed a lot of material from Betrayal for the reason "removed researchEditor socking." However, I'd like to point out that the material you removed largely existed before ResearchEditor ever touched it. The following shows the very first edit ResearchEditor ever made on the page; notice how the deleted sections were already present. The article Betrayal was nominated for deletion as a result of the over-zealous removal of sock puppeted content; you should probably talk about why you removed the content in the deletion discussion. I have also restored the ersion of the text form before ResearchEditor —CodeHydro 21:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ResearchEditor is a notorious sockpuppet who has over a hundred confirmed and suspected accounts. Are you really, really sure that material is worth including, or not just part of his obsession with Project MKULTRA and related alleged sex crimes perpetuated by the government of America? If you're willing to review the sources and ensure it's not undue weight on a particular aspect of the issue, and that the sources are fairly reported I won't object. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll try my best, though it may take edits done over several days before I can get it neutral as there's some jargon I need to crack before I can understand the Betrayal Trauma Theory enough to comprehend the sides of the issue to make a fair presentation. If you don't mind, I may also selectively restore some text you have removed from other articles regarding ResearchEditor as well--of course, only after careful decision (if at all, depending on how motivated I feel as such would take quite a lot of my time!). Don't worry, I have quite a lot of experience with the "neutralizing" of biased text. —CodeHydro 12:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but neutrality also covers undue weight as well as wording. If you can source something to a single book, even university press, but the only person who researches and cites the theory is the author of that book, should it be mentioned? ResearchEditor's obsession with the idea that SRA was real and the government was responsible, based on a set of very old, very biased sources, while ignoring the many newer sources that discounted the idea and indicated the scholarly community had debated, then rejected any reality to the accusations. Just because a source exists doesn't mean the idea expressed has merit or is part of the scholarly mainstream. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Want to adopt an user?

Hello there, I've found an user that you may be interested in adopting. Please see User:Netalarm/Survey#mrmewe for more information. This user would like to specialize in maintenance tasks, so I believe you two would be a good fit. Please respond as soon as possible. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 01:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page re:adoption

Hey, thanks for the note on my talk page regarding adoption. If you're still up for it, I'd love to be your adoptee. Mrmewe (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see adoption as a big deal - if you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. If you want me to look at an article, source, talk page discussion or edit, link it! If you're curious about a policy, guideline, essay or interpretation, ask and I'll try to explain it. When I have the time (next two weeks or so are not going to work), I normally look at my adoptees edits and suggest possible improvements, linking to the manual of style, or tools as I find them appropriate. All depends on where you are at in your editing history and experience. I usually refer adoptees to this essay which contains a lot of my insights into editing circa 2008 or so - not much has changed.
So, any questions? You've got perhaps two days to ask them before I leave, I'll be back to regularly checking wikipedia on the 16th or so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Have a good time

Hi, I forgot that you were going on vacation. Have a good time and of course I expect to see pictures. :) I just want to bring to your attention, if it's not too late, that I have mentioned your name here. It's not important so don't worry if you are already gone. Take care my friend and let me know when you get home if you would, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm back, getting over my jetlag and catching up on stuff. Got sick, coughing up think, yellow viscous crud. Not fun. Cranky. Read your comment, glad you're being pushed into learning new stuff - the only way to learn is by doing, which is why being bold is so important. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please learn about web archiving.

Please learn about web archiving. You deleted a valuable URL when you did this: You could have simply replaced it with this or at least not deleted the URL when you made the change you did make. Off to undelete. --W☯W t/c 22:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nabila Jamshed

Cast your vote at .I support your previous nominations.Good Day.--Poet009 (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, big ass mess. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there WLU! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC).


Hi i invited you to come and see the contributions i just wrote with my time on the "BICENTENNIAL OF MEXICO". my group and i collaborate on the infrastructure part. also i want to know your opinion on my next project. i am going to write about a famous engineer here in Mexico. his name is Bernardo Quintana . ≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by FabGalvez (talkcontribs) 18:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a Cookie

Choco chip cookie.png

Thanks for your reasoned and thorough approach to the discussions currently underway at Fathers' rights movement. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It's hurting my head, but at least it's getting a little better. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


I saw this and wondered if you had. I don't know what to think about it, but you're closer to the sources and may have a view. Anthony (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue has sprawled across so many pages that I can't really tell what the ultimate core issue (i.e. edits to mainspace articles) is. Barrett can be used as a source on CAM articles provided the statement is attributed. The whole law suit thing is tangential and peripheral to wikipedia, though should probably be mentioned on at least a couple pages (Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett at least). I don't feel like reading 400K worth of talk page postings enough to figure it out, even though I am interested in it. Thanks for the note, but unfortunately I don't think I'll be doing anything with it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Just to say thanks for your support on the Fathers' Rights page, seems you spotted the most recent additions of individual newspaper reports before I did and thanks for hilighting them in the talk page. Also thanks for your analysis of Flood as I don't have a particularly good knowledge of his work and it's been very useful how you've shown which items were self published. I really don't think we disagree quite as much as you think in our approach to Wikipedia and I'm not someone who uses the term "attack piece" at all lightly (I've never been anywhere near as critical of any Wikiepdia article as the fathers' rights one in all my time here). Also I can honestly say you really don't have to tell me about how negative material is still notable, I do tend to be be fairly inclusionist and really do value justified criticism in any article. The main issue I have is that the negative criticisms or mere allegations were being levered in despite them only applying to one or two individuals rather than to the actual movement, and it is quite frustrating when people do this. Anyway please do continue to keep an eye on the article as it is much needed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank You For The Advise

The discussion is now on talk:Stephen C. Meyer. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ A Terrible MIstake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments; H.P. Albarelli Jr.; Trine Day LLC, Walterville, OR; pp. 350-58, 490, 581-83, 686-92
  2. ^ Miriam Webster Dictionary
  3. ^ Wiktionary
  4. ^ Endocrine Society Position Statement on Bioidentical Hormones
  5. ^ North Amerca Menopause Society Statement on Bioidentical Hormones