User talk:Ward20

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


Bloated Morgellons[edit]

I think the edits you are making to Morgellons are bloating the article, and making it very difficult to read. While the edits themselves might make sense individually, the cumulative effect is to create a mishmash of disconnected statements and quotes.

I almost feel it's such a mess that it might be better to start over, and follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article. However that's obviously not acceptable. The best approach is to gradually refine the article over time, in a collaborative manner, focusing on Wikipedia:NPOV, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

The goal should be to make the subject accessible to a first time reader in a clear manner. The goal is not to persuade the reader of one viewpoint or another. Where facts are in dispute, we should report those facts plainly. Where they are in dispute, we should explain the nature of the dispute, who the various parties in the dispute are, and what the various viewpoints are. The point is to describe the situation from a neutral point of view.

I urge you to take a step back, read some other articles, and then come back and read the Morgellons article from a fresh perspective.

Herd of Swine 20:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


I added that the article needed attention because of the neutrality tag on the article itself. It's kind of a standard procedure to tag any article that has a tag like that on it so that, with luck, the article can get the attention it needs to get the tag removed. I realize that many of the Rational Skepticism articles will have such tags, but haven't yet learned to not add the "attention" tag in all such cases. John Carter 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Some people would say your prior version of the article wasn't NPOV you know.:) It still isn't now, IMHO, but I'm glad you've summarised the introduction a bit, I still think you could summarise the CDC statement listing the symptoms a bit, maybe get it down to a sentence or two. And if you want the Mayo quote then fine, I just thought it was long winded, plus it is only one source, so it's undue weight to rely on it alone for medical professional's views. I'm sure you care deeply about this article and I'm glad you've kept the lead summarised a bit. But please remember no-one owns an article on wikipedia.Merkinsmum 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

replies to your message:

The Mayo clinic "All statements are reviewed by our experts for medical accuracy. Before producing this health topic, the product development team collected and reacted to ideas over a period of multiple months using a number of sources."

-But there's plenty of peer-reviewed journals, I think they probably have articles on this, which are reviewed by different articles, not just one facility. I suspect the Mayo clinic might be more pro-alternative medicine/currently unrecognised theories than some doctors- but I could be wrong.:)

"I also see how a few editors have taken liberties with this article."

Yes but compared to other articles, look how few contributors have contributed, and once they do, they don't often come back. I expect because you 'jump on' them on the article, its talkpage, or their talkpage. Also, no other editors can get a word in, you have edited the article probably hundreds of times. Neutral Point of View comes from lots of different editors contributing.

" Wikipedia must be right concerning living persons. This article affects tens of thousands of living persons."

Yes but it's not a BLP article, as no specific sufferers are mentioned, unless it's the mum of the family. I do feel for those with morgellons (though most of the people who've registered, have completely forgotten they did so.) I feel for the sufferers, because I wish they were getting the psychiatric help they need. That's not an insult, and I don't mean it as such, but as a statement of fact/prevailing opinion.

The questions:

1) You wrote, "Most scientists and medical professionals do not see Morgellons as a separate new condition, but a psychiatric one which is usually referred to as Delusions of Parasitosis(DP)." Why did you believe this and do you still have that position?

-Why wouldn't I still hold it? I believe it due to common sense/everything I've read that is by doctors and psychologists who aren't personally known to be fans of alternative medicine/similar theories.

Why do you believe in morgellons? If you believe you have it, have you seen a general practitioner in medicine who wasn't already a believer in alternative medicine, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and so forth, and got them to examine you, and if so what did they say? Have you seen a psychiatrist/psychologist in the mainstream and got them to look at your symptoms? If not, why not?:)

2) You wrote, "other areas have thoroughly investigated Morgellons and found it to be identical to DP." Same question as above.

Oh I meant the bit in the article "In February 2005, a report on a Fox affiliate in Duval County, Florida, prompted the Duval County Health Department (DCHD) to investigate. Their report concluded:

"An in-depth literature search was initiated and a bibliography is attached for reference; it was determined after extensive reviewing of these articles that Morgellons Disease is synonymous with delusional parasitosis (CDC, 1999). DCHD Epidemiology consulted a pediatric dermatologist within the health department for his professional opinion. It was concluded that this is a psychological condition that has been mentioned in literature for hundreds of years. Additionally, further investigation would be very costly to perform skin scrapings and laboratory testing."[28]

The DCHD report noted there was a significant spike in reported cases after the news report." -(see my comment further down for my views on the telly coverage)

Now I suppose you will say the area above didn't actually bother running a study on morgellons, but from saying they reviewed the articles it looks like they performed a meta-review.

You can tell by the CDC not doing anything about for years about starting the actual fieldwork of their investigation, that they don't think it is infectious/serious, or they would have moved fast.

One might think the CDC report (when they get round to it) will be conclusive, but when it concludes that Morgellons believers have minor skin diseases such as exzema combined with psychosomatic symptoms, the believers will just say it wasn't conducted properly or something like that, and hold on to those few affirmative comments by doctors who already believe in similar theories/illnesses.

3) Why do you write as if you don't like the MRF?

I just don't want the article to be an advert for the MRF. The numbers of self-regs mentioned, in the first sentence of the article, and a link to the self-reg page in the reference section, seems a bit promotional.

I also think that the MRF have fostered this belief by their self-publicising/media stuff about the disease. Hence the spike in people reporting they have it, following it being on telly.

I think the MRF have effectively created the disease, the mum admits she revived the name, started publicising it, etc. She just wouldn't accept a trained doctor telling her what her son had, eczema.

I think they're spreading a disturbing, neurotic belief that is actually what's making people ill, plus it's stopping people getting help for their real problems, which are psychiatric/psychological.

This was in the BBC news articles the other day, I think it's relevant to Morgellons and similar beliefs [1] it's effectively a study that's proven that people can believe things, such as that they are ill/allergic etc, and it can destroy their lives and make them physically ill. Their pain is real, but it's their belief that caused it, no real allergy. I think MRF are spreading a belief which is like this, when combined with people's existing problems/vulnerabilities. Hope this helps. Merkinsmum 23:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


I moved your nonsense tag of this to the main article page, which is where these tags go, unless you come across a talk page that doesn't have a matching article page. I did not delete it because it's technical in an area I know nothing about and it's not patent nonsense in the way one I deleted yesterday was that said so-and-so was born with a radio attached to their head.Rlevse 11:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this isn't patent nonsense and has at least some plausibility of truth, create a section in the Morgellons article, perhaps a paragraph that summarizes it and at the end put a citation needed tag, which you do by typing the word "fact" inside two curly braces.Rlevse 13:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
you may be interested in this. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Enigmatode_.E2.86.92_MorgellonsRlevse 01:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Using a navbox[edit]

Having your own personal navbox is a-okay. I took the liberty of editing it to remove the link that was causing your user page to be listed in the category for medical navigation boxes. --Una Smith 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Sorry Ward20, there are two "Ward"s on the MRF board members page, so I just assumed you were one of them. My apologies. Herd of Swine 15:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

received your note[edit]

No worries - I didn't take it personally when my edit was undone; I've replied further on the article talk page. All is cool - thanks for your positive note and explanation. --Jack-A-Roe 08:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • RE: Kutter and Yancy's Fancy: I occasionally buy cheese at Kutter's and was unaware of the buy-out until I saw the article. I had wondered why the other brand was on the shelf there, but, since it had a higher price, I always continued to buy Kutter's. My only contribution to the article was to insert the address. I passed the place yesterday, and it still says Kutter's. Feel free to elaborate on this article. In the past, I noticed that Kutter's operation was cited as environmentally friendly, and they have helped set up cheese operations in other countries. Stepp-Wulf (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC).
    • The article regarding environmental practices appeared years ago, it might have been in "Audubon" magazine, can't recall. The Ext Link has some material. If you are from the area, maybe you can beef up some of the articles, particularly Indian Falls. The Akron and Newstead articles are continually subject to stupid vandalism, Good Luck.Stepp-Wulf (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC).


Thank you for your efforts to bring some neutrality to a very POV editors changes of recent times. At a time when it has been very noticable that there has been the lack of neutral support from other primary editors. Unfortunately over the recent period my access to the internet/Wiki/CFS has been frustratingly intermittent due to monsoon weather patterns and disruptive weather. I have still learnt from you and hope you will return to edit more regularily on the CFS article. Regards Jagra (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to make some edits as discussed in the talk page but they were immediately undone by sciencewatcher, therefore the rest of us appear to be held to ransom by one person this seems against the ethos of wikipedia, what happens in this scenario? (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

CFS and POV Issues[edit]

Thank you for your comments. I will describe what I percieve as an issue with the CFS entry. There are several well meaning editors who are 'playing by the per-forma book' with an ultra-conservative approach on a condition that is at the edge of the medical universe. CFS is as far off the medical world as you can get (no way to test, no known treatment, etc). I remember coming across such students in some of my 3rd year classes, good marks in 1st and 2nd year but when I demanded of them to think, instead of rote or look up a reference, they blew it -- consequentially suffering a grade point drop (and never signing up for another one of my classes).

They do not appear to know the literature or research, likely never had a conversation with any of the major researchers or internists. I have challenged them to name who they deem to be experts, what books they deem to be text books and best Journals specific to the CFS -- I have no expectations of a reasonable answer from them. Those three items should be publicly declared (I think they should be in entry to add transparency and clarify the POV). I chuckled, because one of the entry's that they recently deleted was to a citation from the Lancet... and also cited in PubMed which was by me.... and then they assert that it should be in the Lancet. They have cited patient groups in a very negative way, indicating that they have become/are very polarized.

I am by training and early work experience, a Medical Statistician that ended up doing Data-Mining instead (same statistical processes often) because the pay was much better (I'm currently earning 3x what the average MD my age is earning).

The question is how to deal with them, I could borrow from my former bosses and give them a 'Microsoft Blast'. I could proceed to start doing "their style of routine" on CBT and other of their contents, i.e. delete, delete, delete. My current thought is to pursue the Experts/Texts?Journal for a few days and then toss it over to Mediation because of the lack of transparency and violation of POV -- ie. deleting contrary opinions, even when they are more common on PubMed than what they appear to believe in.

Thank you for your suggestions, Lassesen (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


I am also in an intense discussion on the Abiogenesis talk page if you want to contribute to that.--Jorfer (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark Energy[edit]

I wasn't looking for help with the content knowledge. There are two sentences on Christian's opinion of Dark Energy that I attempted to put on there and that was removed and probably won't ever be included, and the headings, paragraphing, and overall organization is something else you can comment about on the talk page.--Jorfer (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Float upstream[edit]

Yup.[2] Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You did an amazing job on that. Well done.Ward20 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Gone quackers[edit]

This really quacked me up! Dreadstar 09:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes have my moments. If you can use any part of it fine, if not revert it.Ward20 (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine lead[edit]

Hi there, thanks for the edits, I reworded the second part slightly to emphasise that the word "Myth" was the word chosen by the AMA, rather than any editorialising in the lead. Other than that I think your change is great. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, I told him he was right, on both counts. I'll leave it to you, as I don't want to edit war with him, tho he seems to be wrong about the template. But I've been wrong before tonight (: Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the possible contradictions. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 02:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen[edit]

Hi Ward, I'd like to see you comment at Vereniging Basisinkomen. Since I have a COI, there is not much more that I can do there, and I would hate to see a good article go because a user dislikes me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You get another chance, see: [3]. Apparently this user was not satisfied with the outcome. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus[edit]

I'd appreciate your input on this, since you are familiar with this user. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and wp:v at Morgellons[edit]

Ward20 thanks for writing me. You say I introduced POV and wp:v problems at Morgellons. What do you think is my terrible POV, I don't understand. I have skin problems and I read about Morgellons on the Internet two years ago and I read news and medline on it since. I don't know any body with Morgellons, I don't know people at MRF. I read more at MRF than at morgellonswatch. What POV do you think I have, I do not edit without sources. I don't know what Morgellons is, I think it is very cool if a mom found a new disease and got people to recognize it and treat it so people don't suffer. Doesn't matter what I think b/c WP:FRINGE says on medical topics more weight goes to the scientific side then a fringe group like Morgellons. Today medical people say, Morgellons is a new name for DP. Who cares if you or I like that or dislike. Morgellons is a fringe theory now, not my POV just what the medical community says, if it changes with CDC report then I will help you change the article gladly! RetroS1mone talk 12:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ward20 thank you for your edits at Morgellons. In a recent edit, you gave edit summary "per Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, It does not matter what she saw the fibers with, others have now looked at the fibers". I don't find any language like that at the Noticeboard. Two outside editors gave opinions. One supported taking Mary Leitao out of lead, didn't say any thing about the microscope. Other editor said the microscope should not be described as toy for NPOV, said circumstances of the discovery were important. No consensus for taking out microscope totally like you did implying it was Noticeboard consensus. Second your edit summary implies all you did was take out the microscope, you also deleted the technician and changed a few things. The Noticeboard did not support your idea Leitao was not a technician, user leffler said it was consistent with her education and experience. Please be more careful your edit summaries are not misleading and don't mis-represent consensus. Thank you! RetroS1mone talk 13:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
RetroS1mone, I am sorry that I was not clear in my edit summary. I believe I have addressed your concerns in the second post above in my response on Talk:Morgellons. I also did not say there was consensus at the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, I said per the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. A very experienced editor posted a concise work experience for Leitao and I went with that. There is just no RS for technician, and as I explained on Talk:Morgellons, lab technician is too vague. There are RS's for biologist and medical researcher, so the concise work experience reference is the best compromise.
Concerning POV: I said the edits introduced WP:NPOV, and WP:V problems, and I have never said or implied you have a terrible POV. As you said our POV does not matter. The article and edits should not have a POV. The article needs to describe the contrasting viewpoints without bias and according to the weight determined by what the reliable sources say. All reliable sources are not equal either, The Mainstream opinions in the lead were based on very high impact reliable second sources. Nature magazine, the Mayo Clinic, and (I believe) the Atlas of Human Parasitology. Now there are snippets of newspaper articles that serve as sources for Mainstream opinions that are not as NPOV as it was. Other examples [4] taking out large numbers was an excellent edit to make the sentence more NPOV (notice you changed a lot more than that though and did not mention it in your edit summary). The part that was added, "and the Morgellons Research Foundation, the nonprofit organization that Mary Leitao founded in 2002 and now runs out of her house in Pennsylvania" is kind of coatrackey. The article is turning into a coatrack article because of all the bias. This edit [5], treating a local newspaper article statement without sources that says, "95% of Morgellons patients are reportedly diagnosed with delusional parasitosis as just bald face fact is so very POV. I could go on but will save it for the Morgellons talk page. Please RetroS1mone, consider rereading WP:NPOV. Thanks, and I hope we can come to consensus on a lot of these items. Ward20 (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
With respect I have read and re-read NPOV and WP:FRINGE. It looks to me, currently Morgellons is a fringe theory like on WP:FRINGE. The articles and edits on Wikipedia should have a POV, a neutral point of view, corresponds to scientific consensus. The scientific consensus today is, people with these symptoms have DP and respond to antipsychotic drugs. Morgellons is DP in scientific consensus. That might changes some day may be with the CDC report or if MRF people ever publish convincing data, not reviews and letters to the editor in the science literature and change the medical communities mind. Mean while pushing your personal POV against scientific consensus is unacceptable, Wikipedia is not the place for it.
I don't understand, why you are arguing about things that are said by scientists, by the news media, by Leitao and the MRF too. Like the microscope, so many sources mention it, Leitao mentions it. The big online talk pages where Leitao was spreading the word years ago, she talks about what kind of microscope it is, where to get it, what to do when they stopped making that model. I know those are not reliable sources for the article, but you know the history don't you. The microscope is an important part from Morgellons history according to every one on all sides of the problem. But you take it out unilaterally. Or the Munchausens by proxy news says it, Leitao says it in quotes, doctors reportedly said it. No one disputes it was said or it was important in the feeling of isolation of Leitao that lead to MRF founding, except you. Or the "95% of Morgellons patients" in the very pro-Morgellons toned article. Yes even the Savely Leitao Stricker article says most patients are diagnosed that way. Do you prefer that as source? The MRF and the NMO say it. The NMO knows its so common, they even have instructions coaching patients about what to do basically trick doctors and avoid the diagnosis. No one disputes the DP diagnosis is common except you.
My opinion, the article is still weighted to much to the fringe theory and more corrections should be made ahead what I have made to emphasise, scientific consensus is Morgellons=DP and the MRF and the other orgs reinforcing delusions and spreading mass delusion. My opinion, my edits have all been sourced and reflect the neutral point of view=scientific consensus. My opinion, you have had a field day with a non scientific consensus POV at Morgellons for too long because people are not applying NPOV and FRINGE with rigor with you I don't know why. I like that you are polite unlike some of the past fringe editors at Morgellons but politeness is not a excuse for fringe POV. Because Morgellons is notable because of the very good PR by MRF, Morgellons should mention the fringe view but say more clearly it is not consensus and give more weight to scientific consensus. I hope we can come to consensus too, I hope it is closer to Wikipedia's point of view, scinetific consensus, not a fringe view that even disputes things MRF and Leitao considers non controversial. RetroS1mone talk 23:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Still around?[edit]

Just checking to see if you are still around. Appreciate your work on the CFS article, and hope you have not got to frustrated with it, and decided to move on. If you have, then thanks for your input, and all the best. Cheers. Bricker (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AN/I about WLU's latest CFS edits[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:WLU. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Guido den broeder[edit]

A discussion of Guido den Broeder's conduct and status as an editor has begun at

I've alerted you since you are on his "respected user" list WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Orange flower with water.jpg

thank you 2[edit]

Thanks for the tip about tildies Ward20.UYBS (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Hooper afd[edit]

Sorry to see your work on the Hooper article under attack.Sam Weller (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC) If you have access to Hooper 2007 can you e'mail it to me ! Jagra (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Ward20 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

notability comment[edit]

Hi Ward20 i know you are aggrevated with me so i think i will try and explain. You edited after me at Leonard Jason and it is a good example, Leonard Jason is cited alot in literature and not just in his journals he edits and he is interviewed in the New York Times and he gets coverage in other big independant sources. He is notable bc of that and i do not dispute. BC his notability is not a quetsion there is some stuff in the article that i think is trivia like some of the awards and IACFS and stuff, but it is not wrong having some trivia in article. bc he is already notable, it is supporting and interesting that is all. Same about Simon Wessely trivia you told about, that bicycle thing does not make him notable, it is the huge citations and huge textbooks and BBC and New York Times and government panels etc that makes him notable.

I just do not agree on it, when the trivia is to say a person is notable and replace the secondery sources it needs. Patricia Fennell does not have big independant second sources about her like Leonard Jason. David Sheffield Bell has some quotes in second sources so some people think that makes notability and other people like me do not bc it is not significant coverage of the person, i think that must get a discussion but he does also not have the big second sources like Leonard Jason. When notability is not clear, answer is not, make a long list from every thing on a persons web site, it is my opinion and that is why I am arguing against these biographies that were added by peoples employee or the activist guy from the web group. O and i want to say i do not hate activists!! I think activism is great it is not the best way writing encyclopedia tho so people can be activists and i like that but they need to use the right sources. RetroS1mone talk 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not ignoring you, just have priorities right now. Ward20 (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
After reading the above several times I can't find a question for me, but on another page you asked me to respond. Thank you for explaining your reasoning. Some people are more notable than others, obviously. I am trying to improve the articles using what I know of Wikipedia policy. If the consensus is that the article is not notable it will be deleted and so be it. I don't believe it is the job of a single editor to predetermine notability. The material presented according to Wikipedia policy will ultimately determine notability. Ward20 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

POV edits[edit]

You are saying my edits are POV, ok what is the POV?? You are making this article to a resume and directory from primary sources. I am thinking, we will need dispute resolution. RetroS1mone talk 04:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the article Daniel Peterson (physician). Fine with me, I will seek WP:RFC for the article. Your POV edits removed verifiable material from reliable sources, removed publications and awards, and introduced bias and weasel wording to make the biography less notable.[6] Ward20 (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Excellent job on the Daniel Peterson article, Ward20! Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:True Believer SYndrome[edit]


I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of that particular discussion to my edit. The article said that anti-419 activitsts refer to fraud victims of that type as "true believers". The source said precisely that, and the tag I removed implied that it did not say that. Therefore, the tag was incorrect and should have been removed. As far as I can see, that is all there is to it. I simply can't see how the discussion you pointed me to has anything to do with my edit. (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again,

I got your reply and left my 2 cents on the article's talkpage. I'm not going to edit it further until we reach an agreement on whether or not it deserves to be included.

Thanks (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Passive Aggressive[edit]

Dear Ward20: let me see if I got it right: if I include a reference that is a link to my page, and said external link to my page links to a page which is an article, with no links itself to ebooks for sale, is it OK? I have lots of good articles in my site, will use one without any links whatsoever, and it will be accepted, right? Other comment: I did additions quoting a couple of good books on passive aggression, and those additions were deleted! I was not linking to any of my pages, I provided useful references, both references were from independent authors. Why were they deleted? because I did them? Please, explain the criteria, and many thanks (norafem)Norafem (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the weasel words[edit]

Hi Ward20, good work on fixing some of the weasel words used in the CFS articles. - Tekaphor (TALK) 15:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for your work improving cfs. Can you shed any light on current trolling? I have read some archives, and Guido was a problem. A deliberate problem, if you can believe this: [7] Is this or another 'experiment' still going on? A permanent defiant attack stance coupled with bizarre semiliterate discussion and edit summaries (but literate article editing) seems almost designed to undermine rational discussion. A 'Guido' sockpuppet perhaps? Sam Weller (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
OK it is to much from this group and bullying. OK before I go to ANI I ask politely, pls tell me, why do you most only edit CFS articles. Why do you edit out against verifiable informaiton on psychiatry or psychology. I do not have a conflict, I am not a psychologist a doctor or a patient or a CFS researcher, are you?? Why you and Sam Weller accuse me I am a sockpuppet?? You are really thinking, I am Guido? Pls put it on sock investigation when you think it. You are keeping bullying, edit warring, calling me a problem and a sockpuppet and making resume articles with trivia about people you agree on, I will present on ANI. RetroS1mone talk 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet search [8], you will pls add your accusation there. Thx RetroS1mone talk 22:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that sometimes it seems "almost designed to undermine rational discussion", I highly doubt that User:RetroS1mone is User:Guido_den_Broeder. - Tekaphor (TALK) 04:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the two are likely not related and wrote that on Sam's page. Ward20 (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've replied here: [9] Sam Weller (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
RetroS1mone, when you say, "Why you and Sam Weller accuse me I am a sockpuppet??", who is "you"? Me or Ward20? As I explain here ([10]), neither of us made any such accusation. Please stop making false accusations. - Tekaphor (TALK) 13:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, this is Ward20's talk, so it is Ward20. Why you are falsely accusing me of making false accusations against you?? Sam said I was a 'Guido' sockpuppet, and Ward20 thought Sam Weller said I was Guido you can see it in the answer. And Ward20 said it would be unlikely but said behavior was similar, so that is accusation. Ward20 and Sam Weller accused me of being a Guido or 'Guido' sockpuppet. RetroS1mone talk 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RetroS1mone, your description of Sam's and my correspondence is not accurate, please look at the original wording. Sam Weller asked me a question with qualifications "perhaps?" (second paragraph above). I responded in the first paragraph of section on Sam's talk. Yes, I said unlikely and I said, "GVB had similar disagreements with this. There were many pages back and forth between them on talk and article space." meaning you and Guido had disagreements between yourselves on the talk pages and article space about POV, evasion on talk page discussions, and OR. I'm sorry if I didn't make that point clearly. Now, you have to be specific and give me the diff(s) where you believe I said you made "false accusations". I am not saying I didn't, but I want to be sure I am addressing the exact wording you are concerned about. And I don't believe I talked about your behavior, would you please give me a link to that? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

you talk about my behavior and de-humanize me and upset me is it a surprise?[edit]

"I don't believe I talked about your behavior, would you please give me a link to that?"

OK at Sam Weller talk page and you have link at your comment you say "I first encountered this on the Morgellons article and was so disgusted I left the article. This went to the Lyme article and changed the POV there." This?? You are talking about a person and you say This?? That is de-humanizing and very so disrespectful Ward20, you want to discuss me pls discuss me and do not call me this.

You say "Another editor also wondered if it was a sock" IT?? I am it to you?? This and it, you do understand why I am taking it personal??

You say "I've never seen anything like it. The amount of extreme POV, evasion on talk page discussions, and OR is frustrating." OK you say it and now you are saying my behavior.

"Regardless, disruption is disruption. It's too much, I am tired of it and it needs to stop" I am not trying on disrupting, I am trying on helping with the articles. People that saw Morgellons and Lyme say I did a good job on improving also people that saw CFS when it had "pro organic" POV like literature review. and now it has balanced.

Pls explain me why you call me this and it. Thx RetroS1mone talk 14:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


Ward20 you say you have no COI but you not answer my questions.

Pls tell me, you are not and you do not know and you do not work and you have not worked with the people you are putting their resumes on Wiki, like Patricia Fennell and David Sheffield Bell and Leonard Jason and Malcolm Hooper. You can say on honesty you have no relationship at all w/ any from the people, I forget the COI accusing, but if you have a relationship or you had a relationship you have a COI and you should tell us pls. Thx.

COI, it does not say you are not allowed editing article, but pls answer questions so other editors know, it is not usual to me, an editor spends much time to put trivia in articles of relative biographies and compare David Sheffield Bell w/ Sigmund Freud?? RetroS1mone talk 14:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You say you do not have COI. You say, you say you do not and that is enough, i let go or I am harrassing.
Ward20, I am trying on AGF, and I am reading the things WP:COI says is a warning about COI, i am trying on discussing and i know it is serious to suspect it, may be i am to strong about it, i am sorry, but Wiki has to be neutral editors and people need to be careful about it. I am concerned your may be personal closeness to the people in CFS is some thing we should work together to help Wikipedia. COI does not say you should never edit the articles about you or a close association, it says their is bias some times the person does not see.
OK, I quote it it is better
"Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area."
I am trying on advice and helping, you are saying I harrass you.
I am not harassing i say in AGF i see symbols from COI, i want to know where is conflict and how we work together, keep it small, and i want Wikipedia policy, OK, pls AGF. OK, at COI
"Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias"
OK "promote interests or visibility," you are trying on making some biographies to resumes with all publications and also talks people gave. Do you have any relation for these people, that is a COI, it does not help you say it is not. You say, David Sheffield Bell can have all papers he every wrote on Wiki bc Sigmund Freud did. OK, may be some people think David Sheffield Bell is Sigmund Freud, that is a strong relation I think. Problem, Sigmund Freud on Wiki does not have every thing he wrote, only "major works" how many copies did Bell sell and how many languages translated and how many are "major works" and freshman read them in the whole world and people wirte there dissertation on him? How many major works in his life, how many 100 years after he is gone? OK we do not know, may be Bell is the new Sigmund Freud and so I will make my great grandson be so sure he has a notable article on Wikipedia like Freud. Bell and Freud, totally different notability.
"contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference" you are having people's web sites and papers in nonmedrs journals and OR from reading the affiliation from a primary paper, IMDB source and transcripts from old tv programs and people's company web sites. It is "Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages." That is not "anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." Most from it is very hard to find and TV transcripts like you have to do hours for find the right thing. You have personal comments about people's motivation and no RS. I am not like making a weird accusation and harassing I am see the things WP:COI says about.
Sources for a biography, should be reliable third party. IT is not a guys' web site and company and a primary paper his friend wrote. Sigmund Freud sources, are text-books about Sigmund Freud and his psychology. Text-books!! Articles about Freud!! A primary article that has his name one time in it and you find in a government archive, no?? Wiki says, when some one has reliable sources in third-party they are notable. That is stuff for Wikipedia, OR and primary cobble together is not for Wiki.
"Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx" and "An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject" A friend or patient or associate for a littel known CFS researcher or activist has a conflict, a international expert about CFS can write about CFS but may be careful about there friends and doctors and associate.
Advertise organizations you are in, participate in deletion discussions about things you have relationship, editing things relative to you, editing an autobio is COI and is honest to tell people. I have strong feeling and suspicion, that is why I am discussing w/ you, I should of discussed with you before. I do not wnat to out you, I would not ever out you. I do not say, you are dishonest. I am worried, you do not appreciate the COI policy. When you have COI you do not have to say who you are, you just do what it says on the COI policy.
It is easy, you suspect me bc of my edits, you ask about COI and I say, I do not know any person with CFS research i am not patient i am not doctor, i do not have a company and i am not in an organization. That stuff is COI i do not have it.
Say you do not have COI w/ the WIki definition for COI, that is the end, I do never talk about it again. My opinion will not be important for Wiki any more i will have to have belief. RetroS1mone talk 23:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, you accuse me that I am trying to divulge personal information, I said I do not want it, you do not have to divulge personal information, you are not AGF, when I say things to you, you accuse me I am harassing. You do not reply on my comments and just revert edits, it is what you acuse I do. You will not say what I said in honesty in my comment, you say it is not appropriate, so you are doing a vague, on my interpretation I do not have COI. OK, I am happier when you do like Tekaphor and Sam but OK, I will believe you do not have a relationship w/ the biography subject you are edit w/ nonrs and you are not a patient from them and you are not in any activist organizations. Thx you did clarify. I am very upset w/ you and your way to treat me and answer my real suspicion. You are not only person that is "really mad" RetroS1mone talk 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"digs" lies and evasion[edit]

At my talk page you said "When I used the word "this" on Sam Weller's page I was referring to "this current problem"" Right pls Ward20, i am not so stupid like you think. My opinion, you and Tekaphor and Sam Weller and RobinHood70 like to make these "digs" at me and get the reaction. You say later, no i was not saying that here is what i mean, ok you are good with words, you get out of it. I ask some friends, no body says "I first encountered this on the Morgellons article and was so disgusted I left the article. This went to the Lyme article and changed the POV there" and they mean "this current problem," a current problem does not "go" some where it does not "change" a thing, a problem is "passive" a person goes somewhere and changes things. The person is me. You are lying, obvious you meant i am "this" and "it," i guess that is a current problem to, what other things do you lie about??

"I've never seen anything like it. The amount of extreme POV, evasion on talk page discussions, and OR is frustrating. GVB had similar disagreements with this." Umm Ward20, "GVB" is banned by Arbcom. I did never disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, Guido did. I do not delete people's comments at my talk, Guido did. OK, may be i should delete the threats and "digs" from your group but i did not do it, may be i will soon, it would make you all very happy to ban me and be able to censor CFS pages w/o interrupt, back to the OR "organic" literature reviews they were before me. You say I am more then Guido a problem, it shows extreme POV. bc Guido is your friend? Associate? No i am sorry i forget, you said you do not know any CFS activists or researchers, you are not in any groups. I wander do other people still talk, does he give edits to people and do research about me to them? Very very interesting, i am not saying he does and people would lie about it when he did, it is not being a surprise to me tho.

Pls i ask, respect me pls, and do not talk at my talk page any more until you admit what you said and apologize w/o the slick evasion, i am sick from the lies and disrespect bc I am trying to contribute at Wiki and you all think I am to stupid. RetroS1mone talk 10:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lyme Disease Controversy and politics[edit]

I thank you for your restorative edits at Lyme disease#Controversy and politics. I think more needs to be done, and the section expanded (especially based on comments from others in another forum reading this article), so I've opened an RfC. I do want to emphasize that the rest of the article does seem reflective of current mainstream beliefs. Simesa (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association[edit]

Thank you very much for looking in and helping sweeten the article. I believe I will go live in about 4 hours. Happy editing, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Pls stop Wikistalking me, it is strange for me, i edit a new article you never edit and in 24 hr you are there reverting my edits calling it "EGG" and also "warning" other people about my edits at other articles. I know you disagree on my edits but you do not think may be it is better, talking about it on talk pages then following me around Wiki and deleting things?? Pls stop. RetroS1mone talk 11:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken about WP:HOUND. I have an interest in these topics and have edited many of these articles before. I have been editing many other articles besides ones you have been editing[11], and you have edited many articles that I didn't.[12] I've discussed on the talk pages my reasons for large edits and have given very complete edit summaries for small edits. I didn't warn people about your edits. I quite properly and reasonably notified 2 related article talk page discussions[13] [14] that the same topics were being edited and discussed at another article.
Since you want to discuss edits, would you please explain why you wrote, "some editors think MUS is the same as "functional somatic syndrome" so they do not like that, but i do not think it is, it means medically unexplained", however you edited, "the symptoms defining the condition are referred to by some doctors as medically unexplained symptoms,[1] a term some psychiatrists consider synonymous with somatoform disorder"? Shouldn't the view that others don't consider it a somatoform disorder be presented? Ward20 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Ward20. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RetroS1mone talk 02:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. It may take me a while to respond as I have a lot going on right now. Ward20 (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC for RetroS1mone[edit]

Strangely enough, just as RetroS1mone was naming a number of people in her recent ANI submission, I was preparing a collection of concerns for an RfC about her. I would like to invite you to edit or add to this list, which can be found here. After I've put it into proper RfC format (tomorrow, most likely) and people have had a chance to make their own contributions/edits, I will most likely submit it formally, depending on the outcome of the ANI submission. --RobinHood70 (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. It may take me a while to respond as I have a lot going on right now. Ward20 (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's pretty much ready to go. If you agree, please sign off in the appropriate part of the Users certifying the basis for this dispute section. --RobinHood70 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Would it be a problem if I got my response done for ANI first? With real life pulling on me, I don't want to be spread too thin. There also is a lot of other diffs I could provide for the RFC. I have not done one before so I am not sure how easy material is to add once the RFC goes live, responding to questions and all that. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not expecting to submit till some time tomorrow afternoon (EDT) anyway, and if that's still not enough time, it'll wait longer if you'd like. I don't think we should provide too many diffs at this point. I think we've probably got too many already. This is my first RfC as well, but as far as I can tell, for an RfC we really only need to show a pattern of behaviour, and we've done that more than adequately already, I think. --RobinHood70 (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
See my Sandbox talk page. --RobinHood70 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Did you want to add more to the Tendentious Editing section? --RobinHood70 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I would like to go through the RFC more completely but I lost my much of my rely to the ANI and am having to redo it. There is a lot of information in it I want to refute. Ward20 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, no problems. Just leave me a note on my talk page (or's on my Watchlist) when you're done. --RobinHood70 (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:RetroS1mone[edit]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RetroS1mone (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RetroS1mone. -- RobinHood70 (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message[edit]

Hey Ward20, Cheers for the message and the info. I'm sure it'll come in handy. I'll reply to the bits of the RfC that concern me first thing tomorrow. Best, Biggerpicture (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No Promotion Meant[edit]

Hello, I suppose I was overzealous in my efforts to provide links to the Rokenbok article, something that is needed to help improve the article. I apologize for over-reaching, but I meant no harm. I do not work for Rokenbok, but I am an enthusiastic and very knowledgable member of their customer base, and we in their online community are endeavoring to fix up their Wiki article, which has needed some work for a very long time. While I may have mentioned them too many times in the Toy article, I did not mean to advertise, and everything I wrote was indeed factual. Rokenbok deserves at least a mention somewhere within the context of the Toy article, as it is one of the most innovative, educational, and fun toys ever conceived. It is at least as significant to construction toys as Lego, though not as large or well-known a company, and I see it is mentioned quite frequently (among others). I would request that you at least allow one mention in the article, at least in the list of "other" construction toys, if nothing else. Their 22 patents and 40 +/- toy awards show that they are exceptional players in the history and development of toy technology and safety. In addition, I request that you remove the Rokenbok article from the deletion list; you may see a large increase in activity, but that is because several of us are trying to improve it and make it a worthy reference point for those researching this significant toy. I also notice that all the links within the article context (images, etc.)direct traffic to the Rokenbok homepage, something that I understand appears promotional, and that we will definitely endeavor to change. We are also working to provide some references. Please work with us; we are trying to do the right thing. I apologize again if my methodology was improper; I just was trying to address the link issue as part of the Rokenbok article's improvement, and believed that a mention within an article on toys would achieve both adding some links and adding to the variety of fact within the article. Thank you for your time, BigKid07 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Information and Promotion[edit]

Dear Ward20,

Regarding your comment that the recent links I posted seem to be for promotional purposes or a conflict of interest, my motives are primarily informational, not promotional. Many people are being misled, scammed, and their lives destroyed in the areas I address, which are the exact WP pages I provided links in, and the free information I provide via webcasts from interviews from recognized radio/web personalities may be very helpful to people whether or not they purchase anything. If my interest was financial, I would not have spent years thoroughly researching and writing this book against the grain of the mainstream. Regarding objectivity, the original manuscript was reviewed by people of many different backgrounds and beliefs prior to publication, so I could confirm the information I provide is as objective and helpful as possible (you can see indications of this in some of my Amazon reviews if you care to look). I also looked at other links on the WP pages I added links to, and it seemed some other target pages were much more openly promotional and a conflict of interest than my own. Please note there is nowhere on my site where any product can be purchased. I hope you will allow these directly relevant links to help people, as many are deceived and need this information.

Best Regards,

Rory Roybal (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

One way or the other, you're promoting your own material. That's generally considered unacceptable. See points 4 and 5 here. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 09:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand the need for such a policy and generally agree with it, because otherwise many would simply promote their own self-interest. However, this is not true in my case, since I am not violating the 'spirit' of the policy by a desire to help others with well researched and balanced information, and my approach seems consistent with WP's stated intent. Therefore, the links I provided should be evaluated on their own merits, and not automatically assumed to be inappropriate simply because I am the author. I hope you will reconsider this request based on the specifics I have provided, or let me know why you consider my request a violation of the intent of the COI policy, not just the 'letter of the law'. I believe I am operating consistently with WP's mission and that the information I reference may benefit others, and if not would not have posted the links in the first place. Is it not much more important to provide helpful information to people, especially when lives are at stake, rather than block the information based on a policy technicality? Please review the case based on its true merits and approve my posts.
Kind Regards,
Rory Roybal (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Given that you're linking directly to a site about a book that you're the author of, it's reasonable to assume you're trying to promote that book. If you truly believe that your link should be exempt from the normal policies, then I would suggest discussing it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam. If they agree that it's a non-biased addition, then by all means, go ahead and add the links and point to the relevant discussion in your edit summary. But in the end, I doubt that they would agree—putting links to your own book on several articles is exactly the sort of external link they had in mind when they came up with the Spam policies. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 02:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I get it, and have much experience in the value and implementation of policies. Notwithstanding, it is reasonable for priority to be given to nature of the content over the letter of the law. Even in courts of law, it is the judge's responsibility to interpret a good law to ensure it is applied ethically and properly to the case at hand. I suppose it would have been simpler and more effective for someone else to make these contributions, since there are others familiar with my work who feel exactly the same way, rather than convince anyone an exception should be made to policy, no matter how valid. Sad this is the case though, that the policy is so rigidly applied that even valid exceptions are guilty until proven innocent, resulting in a disservice to WP and it's readers.

Cheers, Rory Roybal (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor wording anomaly in CFS article[edit]

Hi Ward. In your recent changes to the CFS article, there's one minor anomaly that's cropped up in the Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#Naming section: it now reads that "A review in 1999 explained ..." followed by "For this reason, a 1996 report ... recommended ...". Ummm...were they time travelling? ;) Wasn't sure what you had intended there, so I thought I'd just bring it to your attention and let you fix it. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, It's my bad interpretation of a 1999 review commenting on the motives of a 1996 report. I will think about how to fix it later. Right now I have other things I have to attend to. Ward20 (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok I tried to fix it. Please feel free to clarify if it needs more work. Ward20 (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks better now. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 06:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Maes+Twisk full-text[edit]

You can get the full-text of the article here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything that needs to be done besides putting my e-mail in and then clicking request? I haven't received it yet. No matter I am going to be busy for a while. Ward20 (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
That's all I did and I got it within moments of requesting it yesterday. I hadn't yet had a chance to go through it, though. If you don't get it, drop me a private e-mail and I'll send it to you. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 03:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's all I did too. It was emailed to me within a minute. Check your spam/junk folder. Maybe try a different email address. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Y chromosome[edit]

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I reverted your undo of the information regarding what percent of a cell's DNA is contained within the Y chromosome. I'm not sure why you felt the information wasn't constructive since the source for the 'almost 2%' figure was cited ( If this is a controversial topic, please help us keep the discussion constructive by citing a source for the 0.38% figure, or at least explaining how the number was determined. We can continue this on the Y chromosome discussion page (look at the 0.38% heading in contents). Thank you. (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus[edit]

Hi, many thanks for your message. I wasn't aware of WP:3RR.

The user Sciencewatcher posted on the XMRV talk page that sources should be from a peer-reviewed medical journal. On that basis he disallowed testimony from the offical CFS Advisory Committee from Dr Coffin & Dr Peterson. And yet he sees fit to quote Reeves from the New York Times! I undid his comments (based on his own criteria) and now he has deleted the entire section on the CFS study from the XMRV page!

Can you offer any suggestions? Many thanks. Dangermouse72 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is usually some discretion in these content disputes. The CFS Advisory Committee testimony is a primary source, the New York Times is a somewhat more important (on WP) secondary source and neither rise to WP:MEDRS. But, WP:MEDRS is a guideline which is basically good to follow, and WP:RECENT, is an essay which is simply an opinion piece that offers advice, and there is some discretion as I said. IMO the XMRV study is best left out for now if there are many disclaimers trailing after with constant revision about which POV should prevail. New studies will be out shortly anyway.
I would first wait to see if other editors discuss the issue and reach consensus on the talk page. If not, and editors feel that further discussion should occur, WP:RFC can be used to invite comment for consensus building as was done here.
Actually out of the total 12 references in the XMRV article, at this point there is only one review reference that meets the criteria Sceiencewatcher used to eliminate the CFS XMRV study. Ward20 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly - that was my point. His deletion of the study is totally arbitrary. He doesn't like the Science study and is seeking to rubbish it in any way he can, without reference to any of the other editors or what they have written on the talk page. When that didn't work he just deleted the whole section! Surely this is against Wiki guidelines? Any way you could add your thoughts to the talk page and try and get some consensus back? Dangermouse72 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not out to rubbish anything. I am just skeptical, as we all should be with new studies. The consensus seems to be that we mention both positive any negative comments, which we have done. But for some reason you seem to want to ignore any potential flaws in this study. I'm guessing that, like a lot of CFS patients, you believe that this study proves that CFS is 'real' rather than psychosomatic. Unfortunately it doesn't. Even if this study is valid, the most likely explanation is that CFS patients are just more susceptible to infection with XMRV, as is the case with all the herpes viruses. Even Peterson points this out in the video. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and the problem with the video was that someone wanted to use it to reference research data. If it was just used to give comments of scientists, that would be different. As Ward20 says, it's really a judgement call as to what we include in terms of comments, and that's where you need to use WP:NPOV. As soon as more studies come out, all the comments will go and this whole discussion will be irrelevant. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing out the HHV-6 discovery at Robert Gallo and making the connection at Dharam Ablashi. I had quite forgotten it and didn't recognise the latter as the same Ablashi. Good work. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You’re welcome, thanks for the note. Ward20 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

General statement at XMRV[edit]

Hi, I wrote a little warning for everyone at XMRV. I think going back to the strict sourcing requirements is the only resolution that will bring some peace to the article. Cheers! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute article[edit]

31 January[edit]

Ward20, there are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia. Arguing on my talk page is unlikely to be one of them. I have encouraged you and other editors with interests in CFS, XMRV and the WPI to make positive contributions: for example, to research and write an article on Annette Whittemore; to begin an article on the XMRV/CFS controversy that isn't restricted to the WPI angle; to add information to Harvey Whittemore to achieve the balance you assert is missing. I'm ready to work with you on any of these projects.

If you feel I've violated Wikipedia policies in talk page discussions or content contributions, please feel free to address the perceived violations via dispute resolution. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I won't hesitate to use dispute resolution in talk page discussions or content contributions. Ward20 (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem user(s)[edit]

Hi Ward20

Recruitment, or reactivation here: [15] followed by:

  • Mass revert at CFS[16]
  • Deletion of other users's comments about KCCO's problematic editing at WPI:[17]
  • Unsubtantiable claim that I attacked her, with a threat of blocking, on my userpage. [18]

As you're more involved with these issues, and WP procedures in general, you might know how to check whether these two accounts are in any way connected. Thanks, Sam Weller (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ward,I am trying to decide where to focus my attentions on this whole conduct issue: the puppet analysis or a user conduct RfC. I would appreciate your perspective either by reply here or via wiki E-mail -- TerryE (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no opinions on this issue at the moment and I will probably wait for the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon. Ward20 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi ward - it appears I commited some bad etiquette in my posting regarding CFS - as I am useless at working with wiki talk and editing stuff please can you forward my apologies to the people who protect the cfs 'page' from angry folk such as myself - the 3r rule break was not my intention, neither was an argument ! Sorry dude - had a rough few years with the ME and sometimes it all gets a bit much to cope with - however, since when has the Times been reliable source? See, there I go again - cheers. I will go back to bed now - again, apologies to all that I upset. Notashrink (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


Your history of meritless accusations with the goal of silencing those who disagree with you hardly disposes me to a kid-glove approach to your transparent agenda editing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Note to self, I reponded and response was deleted here. Ward20 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


First thanks for undoing my reverting of myself. I found myself second guessing my decision and was going to go to someone to check me on this. [19] The user has spammed most of what he added to the IBS article to some other articles which you can see by looking at his history. I'm not sure about some of the other edits he made to these articles which is why I am asking you if you will take a look. He seems to be a new editor so mistakes will and do happen. I am not medically knowlegable about some of his edits to make a decision on them. I know you edit medical articles so that is why I am asking you if you would take a look. If I am thinking of the wrong person, please except my apology in advance. I have never communicated with you that I remember but I have seen you around. Thanks in advance, and if you don't have time or not interested that's ok too. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Sheffield Bell[edit]

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 David Sheffield Bell. 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/David Sheffield Bell. 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) 01:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


Pls what is your relation w DS Bell and P Fennell?? Thx, RetroS1mone talk 05:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

RetroS1mone, I confirmed on the very first sentence of this section and on your talk page on 9 June 2009 I have no conflicts of interest in these articles, and prior to that on other talk pages[20][21]. You acknowledged my statement and said that you believed me on my talk page.I and others have asked you before to stop making unfounded accusations.[22][23][24][25][26] (there are others). This was also discussed in the RFC for RetroS1mone.
Now false accusations are being made yet again on this page[27] (no friends voted) and elsewhere.[28][29][30][31] Please stop the disruption, removal of reliably sourced information, and edits that are bised and without consensus. Ward20 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Not sure what you have posted to my take page, seems a bit odd.

As for CFS/ME, it appears that wikipedia is bias to the UK official stance on CFS/ME. In fact it is very poorly run, and confirms everything I was told about the CFS issue, including spying. Should make a great piece to go with the XMRV breakthrough. Shame really, guess people will only trust the CDC and NHS in the future.

There is no Lord by the way —Preceding unsigned comment added by UYBS (talkcontribs) 01:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe your on the right page. my last edit to your talk page was on 9 June 2010 on signing. I also replied on your talk page. Ward20 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cultural references to chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Cultural references to chronic fatigue syndrome has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Consensus on main article was to delete rather than merge, as this serves no purpose in a medical article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hey Ward. I think this was probably originally moved due to the bias it gave the article with the House reference, but I thought I'd let you know in case it was something you thought should be kept. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 05:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
As I recall, it was moved from the main article because it was simply a trivia section that no one wanted to deal with but seemed to be popular with a few IPs. I don't care that it's deleted, but thanks for the notification. Ward20 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Cultural references to chronic fatigue syndrome for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Cultural references to chronic fatigue syndrome, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references to chronic fatigue syndrome until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Fences&Windows 13:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit of Genesee River[edit]

Why did you edit this bit of information out when it's true? The Genesee River is one of the only ones to flow north in the world. The other is the Nile. Apclass123 (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Apclass123

Because it is not true. See [32], many other USA rivers flow north including: Shenandoah River, Oswego River, and Niagara River. What source states, "The Genesee River is one of the only ones to flow north in the world. The other is the Nile."? Ward20 (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

PACE trial full text[edit]

Just wondering if you have the full-text of the PACE trial. Thanks. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sent. Ward20 (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, got it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


Please strike your assertion that I removed the Smith Retrovirology citation from the article. I did not, as demonstrated by the diff. I'm sure your comment was a simple oversight that we would both like to see corrected. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now please strike your first sentence containing allusion to motivation in this edit. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I wrote a conciliatory statement in response to comments about "poor writing and POV". If I've made a factually incorrect statement, I will gladly withdraw it. But what I said was factually correct: I do understand and sympathise with the disappointment that comes when a favored hypothesis is shot down by data, and as a result I will not take particular offense when there's a bit of incivility on CFS-related talk pages. I was commenting on the environment generally, not on you specifically. I'm sorry if you took offense at what was meant as a kind gesture. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Your statement attributes my editing content to an event, group, or emotion, and that is factually incorrect and uncivil. I did not intend for my statement, when it refers to wording out of context and uses a term that can imply bias, to be uncivil. It would appear you feel otherwise. I will strike is just POV and poor writing and say implies a bias if you will strike the first sentence in your edit. Ward20 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Keepcalmandcarryon, I am going to assume good faith and strike the comment you seem to object to and you can let your conscience be your guide. Ward20 (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition to Ward20's points, the other reason that your conciliatory statement is inappropriate and potentially offensive is that it makes a boat-load of assumptions about the motivations of the CFS community and, as Ward20 said, implies that those are his motivations as well. To cover the broader scope, however: while many in the CFS community have high hopes that XMRV will turn out to be the causative agent, many others are much more cautious and don't attribute CFS to any single cause, nor would they consider XMRV to be a "favored hypothesis". Furthermore, as has already been discussed, that hypothesis, while certainly in dispute, is far from disproven. Finally, at this point, very few people in the CFS community could be described as "disappointed", as most of those who support the theory have noted numerous flaws in the contamination-related research and are awaiting more definitive results from other researchers. RobinHood70 talk 04:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times is not a tabloid[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Whittemore Peterson Institute, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record I never stated The New York Times is a tabloid and I left a valid reason in the edit summary after a page discussion entry for my edit. This was not an unconstructive edit. Ward20 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


For finding that source. [33] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for your input at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome.Ward20 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

BMJ clinical evidence review[edit]

I was wondering if you have access to the full-text of the recently updated BMJ Clinical Evidence review ( Thanks. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No sorry, I don't. I saw your request on the other page and probably should have stated I didn't have it. I will continue to look and if I find it I will forward to you. If you get it first would you forward to me? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I've got it. If you both email me I'll attach it to my reply. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I received it. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching...[edit]

my unsigned post at Talk:Lucille Ball. Shearonink (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I wanted the correct editor to be credited with the constructive changes. Ward20 (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Causal hypotheses[edit]

Always try to keep the lead very simple so reworded it a bit further. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

CFS External Links[edit]

The function of Wikipedia is to get beginning information on a topic. Because it is publicly edited you need verified sources to confirm the information found in Wikipedia, therefore links to official government and established medical sites is needed. The CDC, NIH and Mayo Clinic are all established and recognized sources for vetted information, therefore I have added them back as external links. When someone comes to Wikipedia, they want starting information and links to additional sources quickly, that is one of the reason of these external links.

Thank you for hearing my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GustavM (talkcontribs)

Thank you, I am going to reply at the CFS talk page for open discussion. Ward20 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (Ely S. Parker)[edit]

Thanks for the quick follow-through on my flagging of direct quotes in Ely S. Parker. Very glad to see the quotes can be substantiated — and not just from some random website! I'm grateful to you. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 03:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help. References improve the article. Ward20 (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


[34] You've figured out the ref system just fine. You don't see it much, but it's really compact and handy. Documentation at Template:r. EEng (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Small change, big improvment.[edit]

Thank you for a simple but elegant improvement to CFS Treatment (CBT). The insertion of (conservative) removed the need for expert knowledge re weak hypothesis - it was a very good edit. To avoid this comment getting lost in the furious chat - would you have any objection to changing (liberal) for (optimistic)? Leopardtail (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Leopardtail, If you would suggest this change on the article talk page I would feel better about it because then everyone can input. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Richard Proenneke[edit]

What do you think of the latest edits to Richard Proenneke? An editor removed the word "amateur". I put it back with a note referring to the discussion on the talk page. Another editor removed "amateur" with no discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard Proenneke[edit]

There it is again. See [35] Do you remember our discussion at Talk:Richard Proenneke#Descriptive phrases? CorinneSD (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

Please don't blindly revert other editors as you did in Chronic fatigue syndrome. The article must reflect the content of the sources, which have CFS as a case definition. There is no literature that says otherwise, as far as I'm aware off. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Deary, V.; Chalder, T.; Sharpe, M. (Oct 2007). "The cognitive behavioural model of medically unexplained symptoms: a theoretical and empirical review". Clinical Psychology Review. 27 (7): 781–797. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.07.002. ISSN 0272-7358. PMID 17822818.