User talk:2over0/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Issues in Science and Religion

• Hi, Eldereft. Based on your somewhat unsupportive comments at Issues in Science and Religion, I don't think you're serious about improving wikipedia articles in the science and religion categories. But that's just me, perhaps. At any rate, I would appreciate it if you leave the ones I work on to other editors. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your talk.

For those of you playing at home, this is probably the section in question. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mrpsb's welcome

Hi Eldereft, you forgot to "subst" the welcome message you put on Mrpsb's talkpage. Also, I was asleep (apparently while editing) so thanks for answering the question quickly for me. All the best, Verbal chat 06:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, speaking of editing while paying insufficient attention ... Oh well, thanks for fixing that. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychic

Perhaps you could check out the article. Maybe you can think of a way to say things which is acceptable to skeptics, but doesn't violate the sources. See my recent edits. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, good timing – the new message light flashed on that very page. This one is going to take some reading to weed out the extremist positions, but try to keep it calm until tonight or tomorrow (and thanks for thinking of me :)). - Eldereft (cont.) 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that certainly blew out of all proportion in short order. I think my peace of mind requires that I stop tracking this latest flare up, sorry. Until later. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't blame you......... )= You're one of the best editors in this section of the wiki. I would love for you and Ryan Paddy and a few others to help on the Parapsychology article to give it a much cooler tone, along the lines of other psychology or science articles articles. After things die down. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I rendered my thoughts on the talk page based on what turned up poking around the usual reliable sources. I left out skeptical resources since their opinions are fairly obvious; it might be instructive that the APS semi-regularly has a session on the paranormal (focusing on 'how should we as physicists answer when the laity ask about unsupported paranormal phenomena' with appearances by CSI &c. as well as Bob Park and V. Stenger and other skeptically-minded physicists), but the Society as a whole does not seem to have issued a pronouncement of any sort. Skeptical thought should be weighted accordingly. Basically, as I see it, we should describe the experiments and their critical reception, cite the fact that most scientists disbelieve in the paranormal and do not consider it in their investigations (this is distinctly different from the way most people do not consider quantum chromodynamics in their investigations), and cite the relevant opinions of whether parapsychology is likely to be a fruitful line of future inquiry. None of this requires stating or implying that every parapsychologist is a deluded fraud or an incompetent researcher, so I would be happy with removing any of that as long as it is not replaced with language indicating wide-spread acceptance of the phenomena or respect for its researchers (in the sense of ignoring, not denigrating) by the wider scientific community. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Race and crime

I have nominated Race and crime for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. NJGW (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Race and crime AfD

A new user has shown up and 1/3 of their total edits have been to the Race and crime afd. I'm suspecting sockpuppettry but I don't know how to deal with or report it. Any suggestions? I'm a bit tired of this racism rubbish right now and probably need a break myself and I don't want to fly off the handle, so I thought I'd make you aware of my concerns. Cheers, Verbal chat 14:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is at WP:SSP, but that is about the sum total of my experience with the process. I will see if I can note similarities between this account and one or more of the other vocal proponents for that article, but it may just be an SPA. That whole topic area is in dire need of tertiary non-political sources describing the history of racism; primary statistics should be deleted on sight. If you need to vent, my email is enabled, as is going for a walk in the park while either someone else deals with the problem or problematic editors keep digging down to the bannable level. — Eldereft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC) (UTC).

Good advice. Thanks. Verbal chat 19:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on a limited sample and even more limited experience, I doubt that there is enough evidence to tie our new user to any of the obvious suspects. There is one instance where they "swap off" with another user for a couple hours, but the editing time and style do not show characteristic quirks. Their first edit to that AfD put them into auto-confirmed territory, but they have made no edits to semi-protected articles. Fabrictramp just categorized that discussion, maybe now it will attract some outside input. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322

Hi Eldereft. I've recently had a run-in with Firefly322 who has made a series of personal attacks after I added the orphan tag (and justified it on talk) to the J. C. Massee article. I filled a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts about his behaviour, and then noticed he's been involved in some other disputes that you're familiar with. Perhaps this incident would benefit from your sage attention ;) If you think I should alter or retract my submission, or have any other advice, please let me know here. Cheers, Verbal chat 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is seriously past time for an WP:RBI on this editor. Warnings (formal and friendly) have been issued by multiple editors indicating that randomly attacking other editors is not acceptable. They clearly have shown no interest in learning how to make sourced encyclopedic contributions and appear to have problems editing nicely with others (see for instance the first section of this page and, my personal favorite, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive474#User:Firefly322's Perceived Process interference by User:Eldereft (section retitled by Firefly322 upon request), which includes among other issues an assertion that the non-religious are incapable of normal social interactions). As far as I can tell, you have behaved in a manner befitting a physicist on that page, its talk, and both UserTalk pages. The WQA you filed is politely worded and makes an honest request for outside opinions. If the community consensus is not clear cut enough without one, I would have no problem certifying an RfC/U for events in which I have been involved, or researching an outside opinion for others. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently we are known trolls: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precambrian rabbit. Verbal chat 17:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have not yet tried grinding bones to make my bread, but I highly recommend moving under a wifi-enabled bridge if you have not already – transportation infrastructure provides a safe haven for savvy investors in today's troubled economic times. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Parapsychology

Only Charles Tart is given extra credit for composing parts of "FAQ about Parapsychology", which is the origin of this statement. I think it is important to learn more about Tart and his reputation: especially concerning remote viewing. Thus the Tart link. Well maybe " According to Charles Tart and other parapsychologists." Kazuba (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Parapsychology#That Tart. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

AND Corporation

Dear Eldereft, I just curious for reasons you've decided to mark my contribution about AND Corporation in Quantum mind as spam. I'm not associated in any way with this company and my knowledge about this technology comes as participant in US government's security biometric project. They have a bunch of products, one of which is facial recognition system which is based on their technology. Obviously, it could sound like I've promoted their technology, but I have to acknowledge it works pretty good for facial recognition tasks. So at least by my opinion it worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Lazaro (talk • contribs) 17:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actuarial escape velocity

Is it really part of that incomprehensible SENS thingy? If you're sure it's part of it I'm happpy for it to be merged. Sticky Parkin 15:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it definitely comes up in conversations with the same sorts of people and has a paragraph there. I will peruse through some life extension articles and those sources, and check back in at the AfD. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Food Chemical News

Just an FYI -- I've started a section to discuss that source over at Talk:Aspartame controversy#Food Chemical News and other paper references are reliable. Food Chemical News is published by Agra Informa, which I assume is part of Informa. It does seem like a bold claim, but if it is going to be removed, someone needs to check the source. It shouldn't be impossible, since publications like these tend to be available in libraries. II | (t – c) 09:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine. I am going to try to take a break from that sort of article for a while, so good luck. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Water therapy Marriageable age Plum blossom (Chinese medicine) Radiobiology Excited state Autism Society of America Safe Minds Oberon (device) PDD not otherwise specified Robert L. Park First light Childhood disintegrative disorder Stanley Pons Hermann Plauson Pain management Sonopuncture Daniel David Palmer Michelle Dawson Martin Fleischmann

Cleanup Heroic medicine Complementary and alternative medicine Supercluster Merge Wiley Brooks Kinesiology Anti-vaccinationist Add Sources Sclerology Moxibustion Evidence-based medicine Wikify Autism Awareness Campaign UK Neutron radiation Heavy metals Expand Accelerating universe Stephen Barrett The National Council Against Health Fraud

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project E

Hi, I noticed that you had closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project E. Please be sure to place the AfD closed header in front of the title instead of afterwards. Thanks, and keep up the good work! DARTH PANDA^duel 20:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry about that – thank you for fixing it. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Woot

A compliment AND a barnstar. Now I just need a payrise and my year is complete :-) Thanks! Shot info (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Chestnut (not quite yet roasting on open flames...)

Hi Eldereft! Any thoughts on this old chestnut? regards, Jim Butler (t) 10:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but not really – I am going to try to sit this one out. Sorry and thanks, - Eldereft (cont.) 17:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mpiri – discussion about possible deletion

Hi Eldereft. You participated in the discussion about the possible deletion of the Mpiri page, which I have created. I am very unexperienced in this Wiki-world, so this is my question: How do I discuss this issue with you and the others who contributed to that discussion? It this the way? I posted a question on my own talk-page in august, but noone has responded yet.

I am very keen on presenting my arguments for the preservation of the article. I'm just not sure how and where. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogimouritsen (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bogi Mouritsen (t) 18. november 00:28 CET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogimouritsen (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion ran its course without arriving at consensus, so the article has been kept by default. I just removed the AfD notice since the closer forgot. And yes, here is exactly the best place to get in touch with me. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

List of {B,P}S

In my eagerness to neutral I didn't think of mentioning that I'd posted the RfC at FT/N on LoPSaPSC. TfCmO (Thanks for correcting my oversight). I'm not used to RfCs. YoUrS, Verbal chat 19:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the same WP:CANVASS rules community norms apply to RfCs as to XfDs, which puts your notice to FT/N squarely in the 'good idea for attracting interested editors' category. Mentioning that it has been done is just bonus, and hopefully did not come across as in any way censorious. NP,AGtH (No Problem, Always Glad to Help). - Eldereft (cont.) 20:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

NOTABILITY OF UGC

Please adhere to the guidelines for notability and not interpret them as you have done in the case of Unified Gravity Corporation. All sources for Unified Gravity Corporation are published and reliable, they meet the Wikipedia guidelines. Gravityforce (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

switch {
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unified Gravity Corporation
WP:Assume good faith
WP:Reliable sources
WP:Notability (organizations and companies)
}
- Eldereft (cont.) 03:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "clarity of thought" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Callaway

A Google Search for Oscar Callaway 1917 reveals that about 4,080 pages refer to "the well known quotation" given by this individual that you saw as (anti-CFR) "coatrack information." This was Oscar Callaway's "moon landing" for many non-mainstream historians--just like mention of Martin Luther King's "I had a dream" speech to mainstream historians interested in Black history. By removal of this quotation, this serves hidden agendas.

The powerful group of individuals about whom Callaway was referring in his congressional record entry later formed The Council on Foreign Relations. Today all of the major news media outlets are controlled by CFR members. Some major news anchors are also members. The CFR and their precursors have done many misdeeds in history that have negatively influenced history--probably including the assassination of Abe Lincoln, MLK, JFK, and RFK (to name but a few). Cover ups of these events were made possible by the undue influence that the CFR has on our mainstream media.

Many people suspect that the 9-11 Terror Attacks were made to happen on purpose by the CFR because the key actors in the historical event were under their sphere of influence: Bush Sr., Dick Cheney, etc. Over the years various insiders have spoken out about this group, but not until the advent of the web have more people learned about this information. The CFR influence science, energy, politics, wars, finance, medicine, and so on. In so doing they influence you, and your contributions to wikipedia.

I'm all for science, but science has been turned into a religion by people like this. If not according to CFR doctrine, the honest efforts are put down by forces of uncounted minions. No one likes to lose his or her job, so must comply with what higher ups say.

How could the Callaway congressional record quotation be re-introduced back into the wiki article without CFR minion objections?-- It probably can't be. Oldspammer (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see WP:V and WP:RS for any of the accusations made in that post! Verbal chat 11:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the point--You shouldn't because of the CFR's influence? Similar things are said of the Bilderberg Group in its article text--No reporting about it occurred for decades--Only non-mainstream reporters were covering its meetings and agenda--until very recently. The only explanation for the decades of non-coverage has been the secrecy granted to it by the very press that is controlled by it. This last link shows that entire university courses are being taught about how there is effective "lack of freedom of the press"--a fact--not a conspiracy. Have you ever wondered why there seems to be very few big investigative reports about the powers that be? Have you ever seen any criticism of the high concentration of media ownership in America? That a very high J.P. Morgan company official was the first CFR chairman is not in dispute. That Callaway said in the congressional record that the top 25 influential newspapers were under CFR precursor's direction is not in dispute (NY Times sourced--but view full source). Here is a Google Search Link of some Abe Lincoln keywords. The complexity of our situation in society today requires the reading of book or full viewing of several film / video sources that have sufficient room to explain the historical perspective in a step by step manner--but if the media is not CFR-approved--then it is deemed "WP not reliable" even though it has done thorough fact checking and has respectable sources. Oldspammer (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, you did not sign your last contribution to Verbal's talk page. Oldspammer (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, thank you for catching that. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Article subjects

Thanks for checking the article out. I didn't necessarily think there was anything suspicious about it, I just thought it might be subject matter that interested SA. I don't know if it's cutting edge science or not, but it did have "hypothesis" in the title. On new page patrol I come across so much random stuff, I often think it would be cool to know who to point some of it out to who would be interested. Giving SA a heads up on pseudoscience would almost be canvassing I think. :) And as long as articles stay away from promotion and advocacy, I like to have all topics covered. I'll keep the editors you mentioned in mind if I come across a medicine related article that seems sketchy. Thanks. Happy New Year! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me – keep it up. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

updated link

Thank you for updating the link! I don't know whether to be more impressed by your thoroughness or your courtesy (in notifying me of the update). hgilbert (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Georgina Bruni

Hi, per the result of the AFD debate over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Can't Tell the People I've merged that article into Georgina Bruni.

You've proposed a merge or redirect the other way over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bruni – would you mind taking a look at the merged article to see if the result is satisfies the concerns you felt the merge to You Can't Tell the People would have addressed. You input one way or the other is appreciated. Artw (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The AFD ended, bTW. Comments still welcome, as I intend to do a little more work on it should I have the time. Artw (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, sorry I did not see this in time. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific vs. skeptical groups; belated

Hi Eldereft -- first, congratulations on being a model of Gandhi-like edit-non-warring. Second, here's a belated reply I left for you on the subject of scientific vs skeptical groups. (Third, I also left a reply for ScienceApologist along the same lines. best regards, --Backin72 (n.b.) 10:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I find the edit summary box unsuited to developing complex points. As long as there are good faith disagreements, the talkpage is the place to be. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

You are too kind. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Medical News Today

I thought your comments about Medical News Today were interesting. I've seen it cited occasionally and have been a bit skeptical of the rigor of its editorial process. Looking at the information you mentioned, I had an evil thought. They basically seem to be looking for people with graduate degrees in the biomedical fields to publish. I suspect that my credentials would be satisfactory to them, based on other authors whom they've published. So I could write a piece carefully arguing various conclusions which I feel are obvious but underrepresented in existing sources and submit it to them for publication. Then, assuming it was published, I could cite the piece on Wikipedia. Hmmm.... MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, your vileness :). I have seen them referenced here and there, but never thought to check beyond superficial reliability until I found than gem of a PR piece. I wonder if they are accepting submissions from physicists ... - Eldereft (cont.) 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, one thing I've learned from Wikipedia is that there are a whole lot of places where you can buy a medical degree on short notice if you need one to make a point. And don't you dare call them "unaccredited". You need to say that they are "currently not accredited by the accrediting agencies recognized by the United States Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education, though they are accredited by the American Association of Drugless Practitioners and are listed in Wilson's Directory of Medical Colleges, the Register of Institutions of Higher Learning, and the Antigua Phone Book." Anything less would violate NPOV. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I would never dare to dream of such a thing – we have reliable sources verifiably describing the DoEd as reactionary bigots and tools of the conspiracy (there is really only one conspiracy, organized and coordinated at secret meetings of Conspiring to Commit Conspiracy Committee). Basic principles of fairness require that we state so prominently whenever they are mentioned. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific)

Hi there, I've moved the article to a new name, might this solve the problem? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Except for the omission of a serial comma, I think that that is preferable to deletion. Thanks. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A serial comma? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

,,, eh? - Eldereft (cont.) 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See edit summary, I was imitating Lady Bracknell. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And the light dawns! Thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Electromagnetic Radiation and Health

Responding on the page seems unnecessary, but as you made your edit with a question mark so I thought I'd respond here. I agree with your proposed heading – simple is better :) topazg (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It seemed a simple enough change that I could just go ahead and make it without discussing on the talkpage first, but since you had just changed it I wanted to indicate that we could talk about making it better if necessary – thanks :). - Eldereft (cont.) 12:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Christian sentiment

done! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

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) 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[Hymen] skepticism still needed

Hello, you responded briefly to last week's request to visit this page and since then a whole lot of talking and some editing has gone on. But there is still some bile left over there and good references are truly hard to come by. The main point I'm having difficulty with is undue burden of proof. I was directed to Wikipedia:flat earth debate which I found very interesting, and I think it applies to the hymen to some degree. But the anatomical questions are not a matter of yes or no but of qualitative assessment value. My other issue, which was brought up unwittingly by my editing opponent is that Wikipedia is not a medical textbook (he wanted non science content in equal measure). Now at first I was not paying much attention to that argument, but after revisiting the references, I wonder if there is a Wikipedia guideline hiding somewhere which states that Wikipedia surely can't be more knowledgeable than other encyclopedias. By this I mean Encyclopedia Britannica has NO hymen (anatomy) entry, only a large paragraph on the god... EB does give one line to the hymen in the female genitalia article. Also, Gray's anatomy has reduced it's hymen content by eliminating the drawing, and only given the hymen a 4 line paragraph. My beef with the hymen article as it stands is that is mostly based on a couple of forensic child sexual abuse authors, who may have their own agenda, and which seem overly weighed in the article (eg Emans) and on pop culture blogs/websites (Cecil and Scarlateen) which by no means are scientific notability. Also a few editors/commentators go on in length about proving controversy, when I've clearly stated there is no controversy within science. The controversy comes from without, from blogs and webpages pretending to know about human anatomy... This is what I've edited for. The article as it stands is only a repositioning of paragraphs in a chronology of development, references intact (on my part anyway) which removes some of the biased wording, but certainly not all. Myself I feel the article should be shortened to half it's length and most of the forensics removed, better suited for a child abuse page. I'd sure appreciate you dropping by or sending someone from your team. Thanks--Tallard (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for WP:MEDRS, the policy regarding treatment of medical issues (someday we should hack up a similar version for all scholarship). If quality peer-reviewed journal articles say one thing and popular press (or less reliable) sources treating the same topic say another, it is entirely appropriate to exclude or give no validity to the latter. If there is a controversy which is significant as a social phenomenon but not in scientific circles, then it should be included but described as such (Thiomersal controversy comes to mind). I will read up on this a little – expect me there in a few hours or tomorrow. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy copyedit

Well done, looks like a big job. I'd give you a barnstar but until I get one I'm not looking up how to do it ;) Consider this a latex \barnstar{Copyedit on Homeopathy}... Thanks, Verbal chat 08:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweet – thanks. That article was still a huge ol' mess after I stopped last night; hopefully the fifteen edits in the last six hours have all been improvements. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

Fringe science case has been closed. 13.1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus. Supervised editing apparently did not pass; while it might have been interesting to try, on the whole it seems too time-intensive and drama-riddled for a volunteer project. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pyroluria

Thanks for taking the time to do such a great job on the merger. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(: - Eldereft (cont.) 02:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum and placebo

Hi there. Thanks for your help and advice so far. Before I change your edit in Oscillococcinum I would like to consult you.

Below there are two peer reviewed papers which clearly state that there is evidence that Oscillococcinum has an effect over placebo; this is not disputed by the peer reviewed studies. Ernst paper which disputes the effectiveness of all homeopathic preparations (and is not about Oscillococcinum) is not a peer reviewed study. In the light of this dont you think that your edit should be modified?

"The proportion of cases who recovered within 48 h of treatment was greater among the active drug group than among the placebo group (17.1% against 10.3%, P = 0.03). 5. The result cannot be explained given our present state of knowledge, but it calls for further rigorously designed clinical studies"

Oscillococcinum treatment reduced length of influenza illness by 0.28 days (95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.06). Oscillococcinum also increased the chance of a patient considering treatment effective (relative risk 1.08; 95% CI 1.17,REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Oscillococcinum probably reduces the duration of illness in patients presenting with influenza symptoms.

regards --JeanandJane (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No? Ernst is one of the best sources available. Verbal chat 20:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : I would be fine with removing placebo if you think that the term is too loaded to use in the lead (in the body we can take the space for further detail), but the simplest summation of those conclusions is not supported. Not disproven by evidence-based medicine, just not supported. General criticism of homeopathy belongs primarily at that article, but it would not be appropriate to state or imply scientifically validated efficacy. Anyway, if you propose alternate wording over at Talk:Oscillococcinum, we can probably hash something out that is well-supported by the totality of our references. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, yes – Edzard Ernst is one of our best sources for Alternative medicine articles. He, so far as I can tell, investigates without mechanism-bias based solely on rigorous evidence (and regularly opines that a great many studies frankly suck). - Eldereft (cont.) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you justify why you think that his opinion in a non peer reviewed study is more valuable than 2 peer reviews studies? Please use wikipedia criteria for reliable sources.--JeanandJane (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a reliable source. However, if you feel otherwise, you could take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think your view will be supported. It may have been there before, I don't know without checking. Guidelines are WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. All the best, Verbal chat 21:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

a) The not supported language is exactly supported by both of those references. Nothing stronger is, but we should be precise in our writing here. b) Ernst is a notable expert in the field, and thus relevant (appropriately cited, of course). In addition to the guidelines Verbal has kindly pointed you towards, please consider reading WP:ADVOCACY, an essay supplementing Neutral point of view policy. The mission of providing an encyclopedia conflicts with doing anything other than faithfully relaying what the preponderance of our most reliable sources report.

Further, Ferley et al. is a single study from two decades ago. It is not appropriate to cite it, as either it should be replaced by a recent review which considers it in fuller context, or it should be omitted entirely if more recent systematic reviews discard it for various reasons. Do Vickers et al. include this study? - Eldereft (cont.) 04:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is another meta-review from British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology co-authored by Edzard Ernst.

"One homeopathic remedy (oscillococcinum) was found to be superior to placebo as a treatment and prevention of influenza but the effect size was small and therefore of debatable clinical relevance [17. Moreover, the volume of the evidence for oscillococcinum is small and therefore not fully conclusive]" There is nothing else stated about oscillococcinum in this review. But it was reverted again. What do you think?--JeanandJane (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Casio F91W

Thank you for your comment. Because I've had several conflicts in the past with the user who insists on having this information in the article, I was not exactly in a position to invoke WP:COATRACK myself. The message just got stronger because I sought a second opinion (yours). Additionally, three different users had removed the very same information you removed and had their edits marked as vandalism. I am just hoping now that Geo Swan (talk · contribs) will get the message that some people are just not interested in Guantanamo detainees. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If the RfC does not attract enough attention to drive the point home, WP:NPOV/N handles undue weight discussions. There seems to be marginally enough coverage to justify briefly discussing terrorism in the context of that article, but that mess was entirely inappropriate. On another note, I think I included the most relevant and reliable sources, but please feel free to pull anything out of the archive or delete poorly supported information. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

InternetHero

Just an FYI that User:InternetHero is back [1] [2] [3] [4], making the same old disruptive edits as previously noted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InternetHero. Actualy he has never stopped and has made these types of edits right after the closing of that RFC discussion and on many ocasions since (examples: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]). Not sure if there is a point where this is supposed to be opened back up again or taken to another level. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer offered an outside opinion at the RfC/U, and might be willing to get involved in an administrative capacity. Failing that, straight to AN/I seems reasonable. If I recall correctly, we closed the RfC/U as 'problematic editor seems to have left the building'. It is not like nobody ever mentioned the expected standards of sourcing and behavior here. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re reverts on aspertame_controversy

Hi Eldereft and thank you for trying to assist us in solving our impasse. There are basically 2 issues, I have repeatedly asked for their reasoning behind deleting content that is well sourced and by virtue of being direct quotes, true to the source. None of the editors that seem to be in opposition have responded in a fashion that is constructive. Also please note: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive

If you feel that the edits that you just undid are in fact not neutral in its narrative or the that the source is 'bad' please let me know. If you come to the conclusion that copying tables of responses to a questionnaire as it is contained in the GAO87 report is perhaps neutral in narrative and a reputable source, please undo your latest deletion, thank you. Unomi (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

New sources

I don't know whether you are watching Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuessner effect, but new sources are available. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep – good job with the ü. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

re: This user corrects typos

Careful, you can get blocked for that now... Verbal chat 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why noooo, that should never be construed as a pointed comment on why we bother to expend effort on this project. How could you possibly think that such an innocuous and openly honest userbox might be indicative of my analysis of a wholly unrelated matter? - Eldereft (cont.) 16:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Elder. I think a sense of humor is a necessary adaptation and basic instinct necessary for survival on Wikipedia. I'm becoming a bit jaded by the the seemingly never-ending processes and procedures dealing with, for example, the aforementioned spelling corrections (should hearings be held? oh wait, they already have been numerous times in numerous places), Giano's perennially open RFC, MBisanz's "recall" hearing, and the Arbcomm hearing to resolve the dispute over whether Ayn Rand can be referred to as a philosopher (a case in which some method of determining consensus based on the evidence and arguments must be possible). I think I'm starting to slip... As others have pointed out, we can delete articles on the spot and with reasonable diligence, but in the case of content disputes, resolution of the slightest disagreement seems to end only by attrition.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon reflection I see that a panel of independent editors or experts doesn't reflect the egalitarian aspirations of Wikipedia, so I have revised my comment. Sorry about all the pontificating. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Pontificate away, Child – I am easily swayed by pompous rhetoric and prolixity.

Ayn Rand is a bad science fiction author who also founded Objectivism ... a philosophical movement ... nope, sorry, cannot bring myself to care enough to dive into that maelstrom. In my ideal little world, all editing disputes are settled amicably through strict reference to the reliability-weighted preponderance of sources. I like it here in my ideal little world.

As for getting burned out, I recommend ignoring your watchlist for a few days – it will still be there, and neither the disputes nor the disputants will have changed much (witness the recent RfC on Talk:Orthomolecular medicine – irrespective of the validity of any to their arguments, none of the editors surprised me with their position). Just leave yourself logged in and edit whatever you happen to look up in a given day; in a non-WP digital identity I list being able to correct typos, grammatical errors, purple prose, and ambiguous statements as the primary joys of an open encyclopedia. Someday I might even write that Hill limit article or drag Powder diffraction up to FA ... but I am trying to maintain my neural plasticity by not contentrating too intently on only one corner of the world.

If it can be made workable, I kinda like your idea for a content board over at User talk:Durova; WP:RS/N is probably closest, currently. Sadly, I have yet to see an RfC garner a particularly wide spectrum of editors. The solution, of course, is to ban editors who persistantly and wilfully misuse sources. Maybe some day. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Mutiny eh, Mr Eldereft? I'll have you blocked for this days work. Verbal chat 21:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, "Ace".

On a wholly unrelated note, I assume everyone has seen this? pfeh, the advantage of being right is that all the most reliable sources agree with you, that is all that matters. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole SA thing is that it's not like he's the only one with an NPOV outlook on altmed stuff. Although he was verifiability cranky about it, there are literally hundreds of other science editors who will replace him, ranging from me, just slightly less cranky than SA, to you, a nice guy in the wars. You're actually more dangerous, because you rarely are a target. Ooops. I let out our strategy. Damn. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Enh, I never liked keeping cats in bags anyway – it just gives fodder for people to send me links to CuteOverload. But yeah, AltMed, Paranormal and Pseudophysics should be pretty okay; I am not so sure about UFOlogy, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ted Cunterblast sketch is actually a good analogy to wikipedia, with certain editors taking the place of the librarians. That's a scary thought. Verbal chat 20:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What, have you read the whole encyclopedia already? Well then how do you know that bits of it are wrong? - Eldereft (cont.) 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sir, I am a wikipedian, but I am also an homeopath. To be blunt, I am an homeopath who merely happens to be a wikipedian. If, God forbid, the day should come when I would have to choose between being a wikipedian and a homeopath... I suppose you'd rather read books about homeopathy not working than curing people, wouldn't you?" "Well, yes if it's true" "Then I feel sorry for you". You do know what the SAS is for, don't you? Verbal chat 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Culture gap

Hi Eldereft--that's a nice start for an essay there. Congrats. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This comment seems a bit snarky. Nothing a brief civility block won't cure. It seems Drmies might need a mentor. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

S**t am I being too nice? OK, let me rephrase. Hey! Eldereft! Good article! Publish it in mainspace or s**k it!

Is that better? ;) Drmies (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait – suck it is an option? Sweet! - Eldereft (cont.) 16:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please respond to my request of you here. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Am skipping town for the weekend, but should be around to help in a few days. Good idea whipping that article into shape. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IP editing

This user represents as Eldereft. Confirmation of this and any other IP edits I make before Monday or so will be forthcoming when I find a secure connection. 74.179.112.100 (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If anyone notices this and feels like gnoming, Treatments for autism should redirect to Autism therapies. 74.179.112.100 (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Confirm that between 2009-03-13T22:16:18 and 2009-03-15T01:58:12 I made 27 edits from the above IP address. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Orthomolecular psychiatry

I've summarized the results of the discussions on merging Orthomolecular psychiatry with Orthomolecular medicine in the form of a table here. The positions of all editors except yourself seemed clear. I counted you as supporting the merge in discussion 1 and as neutral in discussion 2. If you feel that this is incorrect, please feel free to edit the table to correct this or to ask me to do so. I look forward to working with you on the article editing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds exactly right – good job. My current position is that there were enough reasonably independent editors participating and well-reasoned arguments put forth that a claim of overwhelming consensus is untenable. If only the usual suspects had participated, then possibly mediation would have been the best course. Then again, I happen to think that I am correct (always :)) that the decent-quality sources are more in keeping with one article than with two. Whether this is truly so will only become more clear as the articles get dragged towards quality. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for taking my comment here in the spirit in which it was intended. I was thinking maybe I should have made it clearer that I wasn't criticizing your edit, and am happy about your positive response. I can't help it if I tend to lean towards inclusionism. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Signpost on dispute resolution

Dispute resolution is a game of Chicken. Well, it is good to have that cleared up, then. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Benevolent gods

Have you ever been in the company of a crystal-healing acupuncturist? Those folk are incapable of figuring out anything beyond spacey benevolence – similar to potted plants or one of those fluffy wall-hangings Grandma has above her kitchen stove. Badger Drink (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloudbuster: Keep or redirect and merge?

The 2nd Articles for deletion discussion for Cloudbuster closed as "keep," with the note that "any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages". However, the article was immediately merged and redirected into Orgone energy. The editor who participated in the discussion and then performed the merge believes that the merge/redirect is supported by consensus. I am posting this notice to the talk page of each of the editors who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, to ensure that this is the case. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination)

In your comment to this AFD, you said: "the sourced information is fine, but there is no encyclopedic reason to organize it like this." This doesn't stroke with your delete vote. If the organization is a problem then why aren't you suggesting a renaming or something other than deletion? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct – updating to merge to relevant articles. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping an open mind! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Overdue Star time

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For exemplifying both collegiality and scientific rigour over a sustained period of editing, and applying these virtues to solving knotty problems, e.g. the much-needed title change at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (discussion) and major improvements to several entries there. all the best, Middle 8 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Huzzah! Seconded. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Huzzah! Thir ... er, I mean – thank you. The both of you are good 'uns. Now I feel all warm and full of organs inside. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Heh, don't worry, it happens. =) I just got a bit worried because, well, you know, willow bark, say, will relieve pain – there's no doubt that pharmocological compounds exist in herbs, but herbalists seem very willing to make claims well above what there's justification for, and the natural variation is much higher than is ideal: It's more dangerous to use foxglove than digitoxin, because you don't know how much digitoxin is in any particular foxglove. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Very true; that's a big problem with herbs. Sometimes, though, folk medicine, as with the use of cultigens, optimizes effects by mixing up multiple ingredients. Opium, for example, includes compounds that are respiratory stimulants, countering the depressive effects of morphine, so it's an effective analgesic that is less likely to kill you. TCM herbalists use a lot of licorice, which induces liver enzymes, thereby allowing the quicker metabolism of other ingredients that one might not want sticking around. Very careful attention should be paid to longstanding folk usages, imo. (And while I think researchers don't always take this stuff into account, I personally would never let a naturopath dose me with anything other than a sugar pill and some happy vibes.) --Middle 8 (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I think the effect of congeners in an herbal substance is pretty well-recognized. To take a different example, it has been suggested that dronabinol is less effective and more toxic than inhaled marijuana as a treatment for nausea and anorexia. The assumption would be that other compounds in marijuana besides THC have modulating effects. But the fundamental problem with all herbal remedies, which you mention, is standardization. Even in a best-case scenario, dosing herbal products is a shot in the dark. And since the passage of DSHEA, the US at least is in a worst-case scenario in terms of purity of herbal supplements. Anyhow, never underestimate the effectiveness of a sugar pill and happy vibes; the objective response rate to placebo in some studies is 60% or higher. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

60%? Damn...

On standardization: I like the idea of regulating herbs as an entirely new category, "in between" drugs and foods. Relatively non-toxic herbs (such as cannabis) probably wouldn't need too much in the way of standardization, apart from truth in labelling (e.g., "guaranteed not to have any Labrador in it"). --Middle 8 (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, cannabis is probably de facto regulated to a much higher standard than dietary supplements. If an entrepreneur consistently markets cannabis which is adulterated or deficient in active ingredient, he or she is quite likely to suffer serious professional and personal repercussions.

On the other hand, if you sell a dietary supplement which happens to be entirely devoid of the labeled ingredient, or packed full of lead and cinnabar, or lethal (cf. ephedra, aristolochia), or (best of all) adulterated with those evil but effective pharmaceuticals that your ads rail against, you'll probably retire to the Bahamas with a fleet of jet-skis. Huzzah for "health freedom". MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's true, although I'd argue that there is similar de facto regulation (of safety, not so much efficacy) with herbs/supplements sold by large outfits (groceries, drugstores) in the US. Those companies are big enough to get sued and pay judgments if they're found to be selling nasty stuff. (As for stuff imported from, e.g., China, I won't go near it, except for reputable companies with third-party oversight.) And again, the fatalities from ephedra, aristolochia [20] and kava were all instances of greedy, too-clever-by-half manufacturers ignoring longstanding traditional herbal standards. Even so, the number of people who reportedly suffered liver toxicity from ill-prepared kava was about one order of magnitude less than the number of people who die each year from acetaminophen. Freedom involves risk. Agree the DSHEA is too lax, but I fear they'll err too far toward strictness if/when they rewrite it. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, plenty of people die from acetaminophen or aspirin. But the point is that if you take a 650 mg tablet of acetaminophen, you know that you're ingesting 650 mg of acetaminophen. If you take something labeled as containing 100 mg of herb X, you have no idea if contains any X, or a tenfold overdose of X, or X adulterated with lead and mercury, or X adulterated with prescription drugs to make the herb actually work, etc. People don't die from using acetaminophen in the manner directed on the bottle (most deaths are suicides). On the other hand, people can and do die from taking ephedra or aristolochia exactly as specified on the bottle. That's a pretty major difference. Leaving matters of safety, quality, and purity to the free market is a recipe for disaster. Freedom involves risk, sure – but there's a difference between making an informed decision about your health and playing Russian roulette. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) Gotta object to that analogy. Broad-brush use of terms like "Russian roulette" is about as helpful as abstinence-only sex education or the This Is Your Brain on Drugs campaign. People who have tried marijuana know what the effects are, and they know that anti-drug hysteria is bullshit. Same deal with (many) herbs. Just because we don't know the exact chemical profile of an herb doesn't mean that there is a realistic risk of it containing something lethal. ("Don't shoot up that reefer, you could DIE from it!")

Sure, some products are adulterated, but we do know that people who take herbs made by reputable suppliers aren't dropping dead at the Russian-roulette ratio of one in six, or one in six hundred. Many are quite pleased with the results, in fact, which is a large reason why the "health freedom" movement is popular: consumers don't blindly follow shady herb manufacturers, any more than they uncritically swallow everything doctors or politicians tell them. Depending on the herb, it may suffice to grow, harvest and prepare it consistently, without further standardization. (I don't mean to suggest that we should fail to try to understand each and every herb at as granular a level as possible, but while we pursue that gargantuan and funding-poor task, consumers should be able to choose, and to do so with a realistic and non-hysterical picture of the evidence. It's much, much better to tell a patient using herbs about known herb-drug interactions than to tell them to "just say no", because some will just do it anyway.)

Re acetaminophen, I understand your point, but there are also concerns about its overuse in OTC products, where it's "hidden" in the fine print. And how many RCT's are there for combinations of more than three compounds? Many elderly patients are on four, five, six prescription drugs or more. They, abetted by their doctors, are also playing a game of chance. They are well outside the realm of reliable data on safety, not to mention efficacy. But I wouldn't quite call what they are doing Russian roulette either. Regulation and education are difficult precisely because consumers, healthcare providers and supplier exhibit a full spectrum of behavior, from Darwin award winners and opportunistic shysters all the way to highly educated individuals who are able to use herbs to make a positive difference in their own and others' health. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you buy your herbs from a major manufacturer, my guess is that there's that not much of a greater chance of adulteration than there is with regular pharmaceuticals. And their active ingredients probably do stay in a manageable ranges, although there's admittedly differences. I use kava a few times a month, and my kava specifies its kavalactones. Let's not forget that in 2004 the Brits shut down Chiron [21], which the FDA didn't inspect even after it admitted to contamination. The vast majority of drugs now are made overseas; one NEJM editorial [22] discussing the recent heparin contamination says "it would take the FDA more than 13 years to inspect all foreign plants exporting prescription drugs to the United States and 27 years to inspect all foreign plants exporting medical devices". And really, the deaths from ephedra are less shocking than the deaths resulting from mainstream therapies such as Vioxx (quadruple your rate of heart attack for the possibility of less gastrointestinal problems?) or hormone replacement therapy. What's most shocking about these is how they got past regulation, which suggests there's more things out there that haven't been decently tested, or have been decently tested, shown to cause major adverse effects, but passed regulation through outright denial of the facts and negligent peer review. II | (t – c) 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of what you're both saying. Certainly the current requirements for FDA approval, in which a drug can be tested against placebo (rather than against other active, approved therapies) in a small number of otherwise healthy patients, is suboptimal. Most patients in the real world take multiple medications, and most don't fit the profile of the young, healthy Phase I trial volunteer. I'm not really defending the current system of pharmaceutical approval, as I think virtually every thinking person agrees that it's unsatisfactory.

    If you buy and use marijuana from a dealer, then realistically you're aware of and accepting the risk that it might be adulterated. People intuitively understand this. On the other hand, when you buy a supplement in a bottle at the health food store, with a label indicating supposed ingredients, purity, dosage, etc, most people assume that the product they are buying and ingesting is in some way regulated. Studies and surveys have repeatedly found that people are remarkably ignorant about the lack of regulation of herbal supplements (cf. [23], [24], PMID 11268222). So the idea that people have made a conscious decision to accept less regulation isn't really borne out – in fact, they just don't understand the extent to which DSHEA deregulated the industry. That's a function of both the way laws are made (in this case, drafted largely by representatives of the supplement industry and promoted with a misleading PR campaign), and of the ignorance and lack of curiosity of the American public.

    II correctly mentions that adulteration of prescription drugs is an increasingly recognized problem (the heparin case probably being the tip of the iceberg). The FDA suffers from underfunding and a variety of other institutional problems – it can't effectively enforce existing regulations. It's a bit slick to cite the NEJM editorial, since it actually reinforces my point – the free market can't be relied upon to produce safe, effective drugs/herbs/etc. The sentence you elided actually says: "At current funding levels, it would take the FDA more than 13 years to inspect all foreign plants exporting prescription drugs to the United States and 27 years to inspect all foreign plants exporting medical devices." The point is that the FDA needs more logistical support to enforce existing regulations, not that the task is impossible a priori.

    It's almost a knee-jerk response, when DSHEA or its principles are questioned, to point to prescription-drug safety. But it's not a convincing argument, at least not to me. Prescription drugs need to be safer – from their preclinical testing, to their manufacture, to post-marketing surveillance. At the same time, supplements need to be better regulated. You asked whether I thought ephedra was "worse" than Vioxx. The answer is yes. Vioxx was a failure of critical thinking – the data were out there. I know, because I had professional discussions at the time about whether the supposed "cardioprotective" effect of naproxen was sufficient to account for the difference in cardiovascular events, and about whether the magnitude of the GI benefit was large enough to justify prescribing an expensive drug over cheaper generics in the face of possible safety concerns. Ephedra is a different story. No amount of critical thinking would have solved that problem. DSHEA was written in such a way that the FDA literally had to wait for a sufficient number of bodies to pile up before they could legally take action (and even then, they had to overcome resistance from the usual suspects). If Steve Bechler hadn't died, ephedra would probably still be legal and people would still be dying while Metabolife fought off the FDA in court and painted them as jackbooted thugs trying to take away our freedom.

    The answer is that regulation is necessary. In the case of prescription drugs, regulation needs to be beefed up and regulatory agencies adequately funded. In the case of herbs and supplements, there's a longer way to go – first, we have to recognize the need for some degree of regulation, and we're not there yet. The sad reality is that a certain number of high-profile incidents are necessary to generate the political will to act. It's a matter of phrasing. If you ask people: "Do you think the government should have to right to take away your supplements?" people will answer, "Hell no!" On the other hand, if you ask: "Should the government make sure that supplements are reasonably safe, don't contain lead, and actually contain the labeled ingredients?" Then people will say "Of course – doesn't the government already do that?" MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned (not to sound snarky), we're in agreement that most consumers want their supplements regulated for purity (randomly pulling some off the shelves for a test, randomly inspecting manufacturers). As far as increased regulation, sure, the FDA should be better funded. But money doesn't make an agency ethical. Government agencies are only as effective as their head bureaucrats; money isn't a magic cure-all, and it has a significant opportunity cost. In fact, in the Vioxx case FDA scientists were well aware that it was dangerous, and one of the reviewers wrote in 2001 that, assuming Merck was right about naproxen's cardioprotective effects, then naproxen would be the obviously superior choice (the article in on the FDA website). The FDA scientists were highly skeptical that naproxen was cardioprotective, however. The FDA was well aware of how biased the NEJM article was, as well, although when Woodcock was asked why they didn't say anything by John Abramson and Angell in 2002, Woodcock just shrugged and said "I don't know" (source:Overdo$ed America). Astonishingly, a WSJ article in 2008 said she might be made drug director for life [25] and she remains in the position today. Capitalism rewards the faithful. II | (t – c) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't make a habit of defending the FDA, because they've made a lot of bad decisions over the years. On the other hand, they're an overly convenient target for opportunistic criticism (and yes, I know the author of that NEJM editorial is on the board of PhRMA). I also don't make a habit of defending Janet Woodcock – not since she allegedly held up OTC approval of emergency contraception over a fear that it would "take on an 'urban legend' status that would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults centered around the use of Plan B." ([26], [27], [28], [29]).

Right now the FDA is being asked to do the impossible – it's blamed for both being overly restrictive and overly permissive, often by the same people, and it's underfunded and underpowered even for a more modest mandate. Leadership has been noticeably absent. Morale might be expected to be low. I'm hopeful things will improve, but with them taking on tobacco regulation as well, they may continue to be spread too thin.

Regarding the influence of money and industry on medical science, I think we're seeing a real change in what's acceptable (or maybe it's just a pendulum swing). Between Grassley's hearings and the proposed Sunshine Act, I think things are moving in a positive direction. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, decent leadership has been absent. And when scientists who try to their job are ignored and marginalized, as in the Relenza case (an interview) and Rezulin case you might expect morale to be low. In 2004 20-year FDA veteran Graham described the FDA as a "a climate of fear, retaliation and intimidation". Wood makes an interesting point: "80% of the FDA's computer servers are more than 5 years old; critical clinical trial records are stored on paper in warehouses, largely inaccessible for analysis; and the information technology budget is about 40% of that for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention". I'm not convinced that all these problems are necessarily due to budget problems; it's a general leadership problem. Even 5-year old servers can handle electronic records. By the way, I haven't really been able to find support for the FDA aside from PhRMA, the Cato Institute, and a few economists &nash; none of which I have much regard for. Anyway, federal agencies are going to reflect the biases of the administration. They are highly political. This is evident in the SEC's handling of the financial crisis, the FDA's handling of drugs, and also, for example, in Germany's recent banning of GM corn. II | (t – c) 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Sheree Silver

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheree Silver (2nd nomination). Please be informed. – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Biopyschiatry

Hi, I am curious as to why you removed it from list of topics characterized as pseudoscience. It was never in dispute, and it was brought up by middle8 from an article in CSICOP. Unomi (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

General practitioner

Can you please explian why my "edit" was deleted. Thanks.

Steve Herbets, M.D.

Thanks. 74.10.7.238 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:General practitioner#American Academy of General Physician. Please keep conversations on the topic of how best to improve the associated article there. You may also wish to consider the benefits of registering an account. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Be(lde)reft

How dare you change your name to something I can spell without having to think about it, but will give a divide by zero error. Thankfully my brain has nullity (not really, that guy's an idiot...). Welcome ${\frac {2}{0}}$! Verbal chat 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow LaTex rendering is a bit rubbish. You think they'd get the background colour. Verbal chat 20:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia – the fastest service on the internet. My handle was changed before I could make another edit, and now you notice before even I can update my sig. Sweet. - 2over0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I stalk people who like English comedy.... Verbal chat 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So what's the story behind the new name? 10^12 would have been a good choice, or perhaps simply 7; the lowest random number. Verbal chat 20:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Then I should not mention that I am passing on rewatching Spaced tonight just to pick up my girlfriend from the airport?

I am an incurable romantic, and a kiss is two divided by nothing (forget where I got that, but it has been kicking around my quote file since college). It also provides endless opportunities to reference that "I am a simple Pole in a complex plane" joke. And it is faintly ridiculous – why not 17.2241/0? And it is making fun of the typeface on some I/O labels that looks like 1/0. And, confusing English with mathematics, it could be read as the true but generally unconsidered fact that two is greater than zero. And I was tired of "Eldereft" being so much more prominent on the web than my real name (note to self – finish that bloody paper).

10^12? I am in materials physics, the only time I see numbers that small is for ultra-low defect per cc crystals. And seven, being not only rational but also an integer, can hardly make any claims to randomness. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My standard line is that love equals quantum entanglement: two distinct entities that can only be modelled as one, no matter how far separated, and anything that effects one instantly effects the other – forever entwined... I use Dirac notation too, I have a whole little speech. I guess divorce is a kind of measurement, but that kind of ruins it. Verbal chat 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was going to say that love is like herpes simplex virus:

• It hits you out of the blue, and sometimes it's hard to even figure out how things got started
• No one really understands it, despite extensive scientific investigation
• It increases your risk of acquiring other sexually transmitted infections
• It lasts forever
• After awhile the initial excitement quiets down, but an occasional flareup will remind you that it's still there
• It can cause recurring headaches
• And, of course, you should always mention it to anyone you're considering cheating on your partner with.

Just keeping it real. MastCell ^Talk 03:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... despite the high nerd factor of mine, I think it's more likely to woo a girl than yours. Med students don't count, as they're not human. Verbal chat 17:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

My Love Is Better – a red, red rose, and I wanna ride it all night long.

And besides, nerd girls are more likely to bring a spirit of experimental inquiry and empirical verification to the bedroom ... - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 19:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Headsup: a discussion wrt the possibility of renaming

"Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive majik

Could you employ your archive skills on the Scientism talk page, like you did to Naturopath? It's got a bit long, and as my good hand account you might find it interesting. :) Cheers, Verbal chat 07:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. By the transitive property of sockpuppetry, does this now mean that I am Orangemarlin and MastCell as well? This is going to get confusing. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

2 over 0

what is in a name? Are you implying infinite possibilities? or are you saying that you are impossible? or that you can't be defined?
a mystery...
--stmrlbs|talk 06:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I would wager its love :) Unomi (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ahhh... yes, I was wondering about the 2. Couples. Does this mean that nothing can divide 2 people in love? Or is it a statement about the current economic situation? That a 0 bank account can split a couple in infinite ways?

Perhaps it is a statement about the symmetry of the universe. 0, the center of everything, splitting it all into symmetrical mirror images of each other.. positive, negative, the yin, the yang meets at 0.

and.. we just got back to love, didn't we?

(how can I sleep with questions like this?)

--stmrlbs|talk 08:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It could also be how we are all special and unique. Not A Number. Unomi (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, you are a romantic individualist! But are you incurable?

--stmrlbs|talk 17:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Death cures all :) Prior to that? I seriously hope so, purposefully naive is not that bad a way to live, it does offer some surprises ;) Unomi (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a second party joining the first. I must remember to do this again someday. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot to analyze history to determine who posted unsigned posts

hi. just wanted to let you know I made a request here, if you want to say anything. --stmrlbs|talk 07:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have it covered, thanks. I changed {{unsigned}} to {{tl|unsigned}} so it would render as a link to the template rather than trying to use the template itself with no parameters. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks. I should quit with the late night last minute edits. As far as the bot, I'm not putting much hope in it being worked on, but it doesn't hurt to have it posted.

--stmrlbs|talk 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

searching archives

2/0, if you decide to add a search to any other talk pages (or here), I just want you to let you know about a subtle difference between using the search option of {{archives}} vs using {{search archives}}. The search option of {{archives}} searches only the archives. {{search archives}} searches the main talk page and the archives. Since I usually prefer finding all occurences of whatever with 1 search rather than 2, I prefer {{search archives}}.
--stmrlbs|talk 03:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, I will keep that in mind. I remember people being very excited when someone finally worked up the search for AN/I, but never remembered to add it to my list of tweaks to make when playing with the header stack in talkpages. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

response

userfied. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

In my opinion, this article needs renaming to place it more prominently and more accurately. Please see: Talk:Water cure (therapy)#Disambiguation or renaming. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Cliche

I know this is so trite and cliched as to be probably not worth saying, but I honestly thought you were an admin up until your comment on WP:AN today. Is being an admin something that would interest you? If you'd like to chat about the ups and downs, email is probably best; in any case, Wikipedia has a dramatic lack of mature, sensible administrators with actual editing experience on difficult topics and articles. I think you'd be an excellent admin. On the other hand, it really is a zero-sum game – if you start taking on administrative tasks, you won't do as much editing. Anyhow, if you're interested in following up, please let me know. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That whooshing sound you hear? That is your deflating aura of omniscience and infallibility. I have considered putting my hat in the bucket, and I definitely appreciate the offer; doubly so coming from you, who I see as generally doing a good job of it. On the other hand, my non-wiki plate currently holds romantically disentangling, geographically relocating, and professionally metamorphosing, so perhaps this present moment would be less than ideal for subjecting myself to the rigors of new admin school. I looked into it semi-seriously about a year ago, but decided that the area probably most in need of more administrator attention was (and probably is) the various national conflicts, and I am not really a fan of all that yelling and intensive monitoring. I do keep seeing backlog notices at AN, though, and I have more experience being patient with the dubiously rational so this might be a good time to look into it again.

I already know I would not be able to block that lovable rogue Verbal, but hopefully you will get an email seeking other sage advice before summer is done. Best regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 02:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Elders have left

Did you see there is now an article content noticeboard? Miracles are possible, you just have to believe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, but thanks. I do not tend to frequent the Village Pump, so I am not sure when it showed up. I keep expecting it to blow up, but so far none of the issues have piqued my interest. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Blow up as in become huge Dr. Dre style, or are you talking thermonuclear detonation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Blow up as in become the forum of first resort for every minor tiff. WP:3O feels that way occasionally.

You wanna add some bacon to Tsar Bomba? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on a Bacon economy article along the lines of the vegetable oil economy, zinc economy and hydrogen economy articles. And I think bacon fat can actually be used for explosives? Something about the glycerides or something? Or am I just confused after too many Mr. Wizard episodes and my work on the bacon explosion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

I appreciate your welcoming message and the helpful links. Goodguy2 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification of arbcom discussion

Your actions have been discussed here as relevant to an ongoing arbitration case. You may wish to comment. I have linked a prior version of the page because the person who added this material reverted it and then incorporated the material by reference to the reversion, so as to make it impossible for you simply to search for your name. (Hope that's not too confusing.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And the scope of that case was already so concise and well-defined. For historical purposes: before renaming a few months back, I participated at this RfC. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not common knowlege, but I think most of the admins know about it.

I tend to dewikify topic titles whenever I come across them. I don't know why it hasn't been fixed yet; it's probably not considered serious enough. After all, it's really not more than a nuisance. HalfShadow 23:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and progress report

Thanks for your help with the broken links at User:MastCell/FDA links. I don't know whether WP:MED is on your watchlist, but I've posted a progress report there that may interest you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, but discussions can fall through the cracks on light editing days, so thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chiropractic

I just wanted to let you know that I mentioned you briefly during this sockpuppet report. The mention was not a suggestion that you had ever been involved in sockpuppetry, but simply a note that you were involved in a discussion where various IPs showed up to blindly revert. Rather than give you a heart attack if you ever stumbled across it, I thought I'd drop you a note :D Shell ^babelfish 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. That is definitely a subtopic ripe for AE, but I am in a bit of a low phase of editing just now. Actually, stellar sourcing with such detailed descriptions that the CoI and PoV sources can be omitted would be even better. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New World Order conspiracy – Oscar Callaway

I'm Not sure if you responded to my comment at the end of this section on Verbal's talk page back on December 13, 2008 or so?

My last inquiry was about why you found the mentioned movie, so objectionable as to term it a coat rack issue when mentioned in addition to the NY Times referenced citation? But you did not provide any response that I was aware?

I still am wondering if you found numerous defects within this video's presentation for which you have deemed it completely unreliable? I seek to know the truth in various things and am interested in any such defects. I have found numerous defects in the arguments presented by other commentators on the NWO topic, but can live with many of these minor discrepancies and foibles because, as humans, we all make mistakes or have mistaken beliefs, and do not necessarily have the inclination, nor all the time in the world to research otherwise.

In a former edit to your talk page 11 Dec 2008 I said "Many people suspect that the 9-11 Terror Attacks were made to happen on purpose by CFR agents in the Bush administration." I recently watched a short TV Fox News interview with an Architect / Engineer (representative of a group of 700 such individuals) that was posted to You Tube. I wonder if Verbal will accept the opinions of this growing number of scientists / engineers / architects as reliable? Or will he bow down to the press releases done by minions of the G. W. Bush administration and the official white wash report that was originally to be chaired by Henry Kissinger, a known Rockefeller CFR henchman? The Hearst Newspaper chain was known for the so called Yellow Journalism--It is the owner of the Popular Mechanics Magazine that attempted in a failed manner to convince me that any credible scientists backed the government's official conspiracy theory. The trouble with most mainstream news outlets is that they do not check their sources when handed propaganda garbola provided to them by government spokes persons.

Another example of intentional media propaganda that formulated the view of the American public towards terrorism, the department of homeland security, the Patriot Act, and the threat of Middle East terrorists was the 2001 FDA / Bayer-Cipro inspired anthrax attacks that were sent specifically to democratically elected G. W. Bush opponents and news media outlets critical of Bush and the Patriot Act. Supposedly a scapegoat committed suicide who was identified by the FBI as the Fort Deitrick Maryland National Cancer Institute (Bioweapons division) source of the attacks. In a feature length documentary video, Len Horowitz explains how the government was the only credible source of the nano magnetic weaponized version of the anthrax used in the attacks. Tom Daschle was critical of the FBI on all major parts of investigating anything involving any of the various terror attacks saying that none were done with swift and serious effort applied. Oldspammer (talk)

ANI on DanaUllman

As you have participated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Choices, this is to notify you that I've added 2 more choices. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Burden

If you notice, the burden of proof is fulfilled- it gives reliable evidence of a series of events. It is sourced. It seems the only rationale for removal is 'we know it can't be real, so the source can't be reliable, so this is biased'. Spritebox (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussionlink: Talk:Mediumship#Edit warring and POV pushing. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Words

Thank you for your kind ones. I will strive to live up to them – please don't be hard on me if I fail. You are a much better editor than I. Thanks again, Verbal chat 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

All of my response circuits have gone all warm and fuzzy, here is a link to the Care Bears instead. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Melanin Theory

"However, as a general rule, talk pages Talk:Melanin theory are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you"

I believe there's been a big misunderstanding. The message I contributed to the talk thread on "melanin theory" was merely constructive criticism, which should benefit any author with an open mind. He labled a particular research "pseudoscience", yet gave no reasoning for why he felt that way. This can be misleading to an immature audience, and is frankly a poor approach on the authors behalf. If he supported his claim that the "melanin theory" is pseudoscience, such as to provide justification for its mendacity, the article would definitely suffice for objective account and show to be more rational. And I appreciate your very respectful response. --Critical Mind (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Leave this page alone--- You don't know QM

I am sorry about the comment--- I really wasn't thinking ad-hominem. I just didn't want the wavefunction discussion to get replaced by an uncertainty principle discussion. That type of uncertainty interpretation of quantum mechanics was really only current in 1925–1926, and was replaced by modern Copenhagen in the 1930s. The page could certainly be improved by additions of some Copenhagen views on mysticism etc etc, but the editor in question was only making deletions.Likebox (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by the above is "You're right, I'm sorry."Likebox (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough – thanks for the reply. I basically stopped editing that article when I remembered that those sorts of discussions frustrate me outside of the occasional historical aside. The article is without a doubt in better shape now than it was two or three years ago. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Park

I got it in my email today. Usually I get mine on Fridays. Admittedly it's not up yet at his site, but as soon as it is, I'm going to add the url. Nightscream (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Page numbers in refs

I remember a big discussion about this a while ago, and someone pointed out a nice template for adding page numbers after references. Unfortunately I've forgotten the template and the location of this discussion. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal (talk • contribs) 08:30 2009-09-01 (UTC)

Hm, offhand I remember a bit of a brouhaha at Talk:Cold fusion (and that article is usually so calm) when someone suggested moving off the more informative but slightly more cumbersome {{harvnb}} style of referencing. I am not sure what ever came of that, though. There was also some discussion regarding one of those science&religion articles where the same book was cited a few dozen times (...).

Ah, there it is - {{rp}} lets you re-use a reference name, specifying the page number at each instance.

“ statement on page seventeen of reference one<ref name=dummy>reliable source, page number not in this template</ref>{{rp|17}} ... statement on page fifty one of reference one.<ref name=dummy />{{rp|51}} ”

will produce:

“ statement on page seventeen of reference one ... statement on page fifty one of reference one. ”

You still have to manually count if you want to see how many times page 17 is cited, but at least it avoids having the same book repeated forty times in the references section when all that is different is the page number being cited. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm putting it to use over at Gary Schwartz article, where one of his books is referenced nearly 30 times. The criticism section is interesting, merely saying the names of people that have criticised his work – no details. The article is written in a really weird way though – I think most of it should probably be junked. Verbal chat 15:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hnh, and the rest of our paranormal articles are so well-written and policy-compliant – weird. I guess since I !voted keep for that article I should actually work on it; probably I will not be by until tomorrow or the day after, though.

On a related note, do you have any thoughts on whether WP:Criticism should be promoted from essay status? Beyond figuring out why all the Criticism of ... examples are religious except Wikipedia and Family Guy, that is. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm (or was) working on it as I would vote keep if it wasn't a clear keeper anyway. I'll have a look at that essay, but I think my wikipedia editing might nosedive tomorrow – I start my new teaching position, and as yet have no course materials... and I can't speak the language... Verbal chat 18:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that, Dr. Verbal. I check the English for anything coming out of my lab, but I am pretty useless for any and all other languages. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Merci, vous êtes trés gentile. To add to my confusion, I have to teach a (programming) language I've never used in the foreign language I'm not very skilled in, starting in two weeks. The fun of university life! I have also had nearly all of my new colleagues ask if I can proof read their papers :) Verbal chat 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... are you teaching brainfuck 101? MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A mental mindfuck can be nice. Also surreal – an RL friend just referred me to text in Magnetic monopole that I wrote earlier today. :) – 2/0 (cont.) 00:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be teaching Ocaml, which isn't all that bad – it's just I've never used it (until a few hours ago, I'm a Haskell man...). At least it's not MatLab or Mathematica. Verbal chat 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious Science

All pages were reference concerning the Bible and Jesus. To just leave the the reference to Buddha is misleading. Thanks 66.108.95.79 (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus is referenced by name no less than 119 times. I will reference.JGG59 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Religious Science page I reference each page Jesus is referenced on. Jesus' name can appear several time on each page. To just reference the Buddha is misleading though Buddha is mentioned a dozen times Jesus' influence should not be over looked and gives a clearer picture of SOM.JGG59 (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Organ harvesting proposed merger

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to comment on the proposed merger of Reports of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners to Organ harvesting in China. There are four things I would like to say. Firstly, I believe the statement in favor of merger is problematic and represents several misunderstandings or misrepresentations. Secondly, I believe the statement against merger is not quite on point, and does not cut to the heart of the issue; even though I had written some or all of it earlier, the context was different, and I will rewrite it tomorrow to properly present the argument. Thirdly, since you have given your opinion I hope that you will be willing to defend it or otherwise engage in rational argumentation based on Wikipedia policy on the issue—I call for that here and a little bit here (but the real stuff is in the first “here.”) Fourthly, thanks and have a good day! (or night)--Asdfg12345 04:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual Detection of Imaginary Roots in a Parabola

From User:Ikip

Might I convince you to raise the level of discourse in that AfD a bit? Accusing other contributors of acting in bad faith – [30], [31], [32], for example – is really beyond the pale. If you could refactor those bits per WP:Civility, I think the discussion might get back on track. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 10:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

hi 2/0 nice to see you again, you folks all touch and work together on the same articles. I never said anyone had bad faith. I simply predicted the way the AFD would go, and has gone.

What I think personally, is beyond the pale is that some editors, no matter how much references and how much an article is cleaned up, will still doggedly vote delete.

After editing here 4 years, I see my comments as an accurate reflection of the status quo, I can pretty much guess what has happened up to this point and will probably happen after our civil discussion here :). Ikip (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

List of panels making life or death decisions

Thanks for rectifying matters related to Death panels. If you know anything about speedy deletions or any other kind of deletion process you could also help with List of panels making life or death decisions which seems to be a spur from the failed attempt to justify an article on Palin's Death panels. The article is pure politiking, failing WP:NPOV, WP:OR and heaven knows what else. I have been 3 times round in circles trying to figure WP:policy and have given up on this. I hope you can help! Its 01:10 am in this part of the world and my editing day is over. Time for zzzzz.... Thanks --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Leuko (talk · contribs) took it to AfD here. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira

Looks like there is another sock puppet over there. Ho hum. Verbal chat 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Quack, quack, *blam*. Fixed. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing with unconventional beliefs

Sbyrnes321 elucidates the issue at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop#Proposed principle: Editing with unconventional beliefs. No further comment from yours truly at the moment, other than to promise not to get sucked into another case so soon after the last timesink. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:InternetHero

This user is dropping any pretense of good faith edits is now resorting to simple vandalism[33][34], going beyond his normal monthly tendentious edits[35][36][37]. Further sanctions in order? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I started to file an AN/I report, but I suspect that the response there at this point would be to request recent discussion. I issued a final request for discussion. If that works, great; if not, the report I drafted (using and checking your diffs, obviously) is reproduced below. Please feel free to update and use it if they continue. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Draft AN/I

For the last several months, InternetHero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting the same text into Telescope against consensus about once a month: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. This is the same material that led to a Third opinion request (more users have since become involved), a block, and a Request for comment last year; that RfC discussion petered out when IH stopped editing for a few weeks. No recent posts to Talk:Telescope have been made regarding this material; InternetHero argued against the current consensus, and is now just editing to their preferred version. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Now at AN/I – 2/0 (cont.) 15:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mysticism

At a WP:Wikiquette section you commented on some WP:Synth at Quantum mysticism. There is now a Wikipedia:Straw polls going on at Quantum mysticism and your opinion would be valued. In all likelihood I've set up wrong but I'm sure someone will point the problems out and perhaps fix them.--OMCV (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Smiley face murder theory

Thanks for participating at the RFC for this article in the past. Unfortunately, despite what was a clear consensus, the people trying to slant the article to the fringe view simply shopped around until they got enough other people to show up, and they are very aggressive about wanting the POV there. One of the arguments there is the typical "people used to think the sun revolved around the earth, and by your arguments we wouldn't have been allowed to say otherwise" silliness. There are also strong indications of at least one sockpuppet at work. If you cared about your input there it might help to come back and reiterate it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Smiley face murder theory

Thanks for participating at the RFC for this article in the past. Unfortunately, despite what was a clear consensus, the people trying to slant the article to the fringe view simply shopped around until they got enough other people to show up, and they are very aggressive about wanting the POV there. One of the arguments there is the typical "people used to think the sun revolved around the earth, and by your arguments we wouldn't have been allowed to say otherwise" silliness. There are also strong indications of at least one sockpuppet at work. If you cared about your input there it might help to come back and reiterate it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hate to bug you again, but some extremely aggressive editors on this article are claiming that I was the only person who opposed their changes and that consensus is against me and that I am a liar and all sorts of bizarre claims. If you have the time to come back and weigh in again it'd be very helpful. DreamGuy (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Astronauts

Thanks for the props and the tip. I edit from work mostly so not sure if I'll be able to use other software though. Simonm223 (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Acupuncture page changes

Hi, I responded to you on Brangifer's talk page and acupuncture talk page, but I decided to add it here in case you didn't see it:

"2over: there are 3 sources for that statement. One source is inaccessible- the link is old. One source is a study that concludes: "Sham-controlled RCTs suggest specific effects of acupuncture for pain control in patients with peripheral joint OA. Considering its favourable safety profile acupuncture seems an option worthy of consideration particularly for knee OA. Further studies are required particularly for manual or electro-acupuncture in hip OA.", which is pretty much the OPPOSITE of what the statement referencing it states. And the last source actually does match what the wiki statement says. Both sources were in 2006, have conflicting results, yet the statement on the wikipedia page states: "For osteoarthritis, reviews since 2006 show a trivial difference between sham and true acupuncture." Interesting. I posted a newer 2007 systematic review that also states that acupuncture is effective for chronic knee pain in OA patients in the discussion"

"Normally, I would agree that a newer systematic review (that takes older studies and newer studies into account mind you) is important, that particular systematic review includes a lot of smaller studies, and no other study (in the review) that is half as long as the major study done in 2004. It is unfair to ignore the findings of the larger, more credible study just because the general conclusion found in the systematic review was affected by the inclusion of smaller, shorter studies. But, if I will play by that rule, ignoring the fact that there are many sources from a decade ago on this page, I will give you this link. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17215263 This 2007(even newer!!) systematic review was published in Rheumatology and found that acupuncture IS effective. If there are no problems with this, then I will revise the information in the article."

Tell me what you think. I need consensus to make the changes to the page, and you're one of the few who are actually responding in the talk page.99.255.196.199 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks!! [43] Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My Userpage

No problemo. Simonm223 (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Regulatory and Toxicology

See this discussion. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for support at Chronobiology. I've been trying to figure out where best to ask for a 3rd opinion. You popped up. You reading my mind? Hope it's over now, but there is no guarantee. - Hordaland (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist, but I am not particularly active there usually. When I actually read those paragraphs, though, it was clear they were veering wayyyyyyy off topic; especially the astrology site (what the deuce?). There is a response at talk, but it does not offer sources or any particular reason for inclusion. The book I just added to source the Cold Spring Lab conference seems to be a pretty good overview but does not mention solar cycles, so unless an equally good source pops up with a different definition it should be over. See you around, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You (plural) think that astrology has nothing to do with solar cycles. You forget that solar cycles are governed by the sun which is a STAR. Astrology has everything to do with heliobiology. On the topic of stars and related to this, since things like this at Wikipedia, ultimately comes down to a matter of subjective opinion, listings at Wikipedia such as the Chronobiology one thereby become *nebulous*. You believe the circadian rhythms and solar cycles are 'way off topic' in a listing about Chronobiology, and delete a citation which specifically relates to a solar chronometer for climate on Earth (what the deuce?). I give up wasting my time. [[[User:Zanze123|Zanze123]] (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)]

WT:OUTLINE

It's not an RfC, or neutral, but there seems to be a few examples of voting taking place on this page. Verbal chat 05:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I will check it out in the morning, thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Louisiana history also. Sorry about the mess. Verbal chat 05:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light arbcom

Speed of light arbcom is out. There are significant parallels to both Abd/WMC and Sadi Carnot; the sanctions are not what I would have chosen (too light for one, too severe with the other primary disputant), but probably not unfair. I am wondering if WPPHYS should establish a specialized mediation cabal or targeted RfC mechanism to keep content disputes at a lower level; while I can only hope that this would help alleviate the incessant tendentious and disruptive editing and discussion, it would at least highlight it to make for shorter cases. Maybe. A FAQ taskforce might also help for Principle 5: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Index of sexology articles

You commented in your edit summary: "not sure this article is better than a category tree."

It is generally agreed long time ago that lists and categories serve different purposes and are not mutually exclusive.

In this particular case, "List of XXX topics", the main purpose is to have an easy way to monitor changes in the whole particular topic by clicking the "Related changes" in the "list of..." page. - Altenmann >t 20:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense, thank you; WP:CLN is actually pretty well written, I suppose. My first thought on seeing that index was "gosh, I do not want to read all of that". - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Religious WP:DUE

Yowzers! I'll put it on my to-do list... religious WP:DUE issues is sort of my usual stomping ground. But it'll take me a little while. Simonm223 (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality

Hello! Your submission of Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If I am reading Template:Did you know/Queue aright, this is going live very soon. I will be out, but any talk page stalkers who want to babysit through the extra traffic would earn my gratitude. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality

On October 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks! Did you know its one week to Halloween, will you be there? Victuallers (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Shelton

Why did you delete the section on Shelton in the Naturopathy page? I can't work out your summary comments – do you have a reason? Zanze123 (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless Shelton is covered by independent sources as being important to the history of Naturopathy, it is inappropriate, as making the connection ourselves would be original research. The main sources for that section currently being used are the ACS brief and Baer (2001), currently sources 5 and 9, respectively. Neither of these mentions Shelton, hence [44]. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have copied this thread to Talk:Naturopathy#Shelton. Please continue discussion there if necessary. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Shelton, who founded the natural hygiene school, graduated from the American School of Naturopathy. How is that not important to the history of Naturopathy.Zanze123 (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss WP:SEEALSO issues at Talk:Naturopathy#Shelton. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Crystal

Hi, after i reverted the most recent vandal edit, i noticed one or two things that didn't seem quite right, but i really didn't know enough about the section. In future, if i think that something isn't quite right in an article, i'll flag it up in the discussion page. Cheers 2over0, best Darigan (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

HIV dissent

HIV dissent is not about AIDS denialism, nor is it about a lack of connection between HIV and AIDS. HIV dissent is scientific information regarding the techniques surrounding past and current HIV research. I suggest you read the information included in the article HIV dissent before deleting it, as you will see that the information is in fact not a content fork. Neuromancer (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

Thanks for your exposition at WP:RSN#HIV references, although I think you meant "within the window period for this particular test", rather than past it. You may find that it's not entirely appropriate for that venue, but it was useful nonetheless. It would make a great example for Type I and type II errors#Medical testing. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, the window period is the period between time of infection and time of first detectability by a particular test. Although rereading that I am not sure why I specified since the numbers are all invented whole cloth anyway. And yeah, potentially I should have posted that in one of the other four threads in which I am engaging that editor, but that is where I was when the thought occurred to me. So feel free to hide or remove it if it is too off-topic or unproductive to wander off into OR like that. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I stand corrected, my only excuse is that I know nothing about medicine. For a layman like me, "the window period" for a test ought to be the time period where the test works! Being an electronics engineer, I'd have called the time before the testing works "Front Porch" <grin>. Anyway, it's best to leave your explanation where it is, as it's doing no harm, only helping warn off anybody who wants to draw a conclusion like "most positives are false" therefore "AIDS is not caused by HIV". But it's such a clear statement of the unexpected nature of this sort of testing, it's worth a wider audience. --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pharmanoia

Thanks for the correction, please feel free to expand the page if interested. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

:). It is such a great neologism, good on you for writing that. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh Lord I get no credit, MastCell has been slinging it about for months now, I just got pissed off enough to cobble something together. There's been an interesting suggestion to turn it into a regular article, but there doesn't quite seem to be the sources yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually of two minds about the term and concept. On the one hand, I think that any rational person should approach drug-company-funded studies and pronouncements with an attitude of deep, healthy skepticism. There are a lot of effed-up things about the pharmaceutical industry, most of which are traceable to the fact that we depend on private for-profit corporations to research, produce, and market drugs. A drug company's primary commitment – like that of any private corporation – is to its shareholders, not to the general public or to public health. The drug industry is no more "corrupt" than any other multi-billion-dollar industry – but it's no less corrupt, either. I don't think that rational skepticism or concerns about material produced by the pharmaceutical industry should be waved away as paranoia.

On the other hand, I think that "pharmanoia" is a real phenomenon. Some marketers of various products have found it useful to tap into the public's skepticism and leverage it. The idea that the supplement industry, or the alternative-medical-device industry, has any standing whatsoever to question the ethics of anyone is ludicrous. These are the people who wrote DSHEA to exempt themselves from any regulation at all, and then put out supplements full of lead, arsenic, and – best of all – pharmaceuticals. My favorite is PC-SPES, a "natural" herbal alternative to all of those toxic "conventional" treatments for prostate cancer. If I recall correctly, there were even one or two clinical trials published showing that PC-SPES reduced PSA levels. Eventually someone got around to looking at what was in PC-SPES. It turned out to contain a substantial amount of diethylstilbestrol, a potent synthetic estrogen similar to (but more toxic than) many standard hormonal treatments for prostate cancer. In case one might argue that this was an accidental contamination, it's worth noting that a) one of the major side effects of DES is thrombosis, and b) PC-SPES also contained a significant amount of warfarin, presumably added to the mix to counteract the prothrombotic effect of the DES. A lot of herbal sleep aids (valerian preparations, etc) turn out to contain benzodiazepines. So the supplement industry both rails against the toxicity of synthetic pharmaceuticals and, secretly, leverages their proven effectiveness.

In the end, the current regulation of the pharmaceutical industry is ridiculously poor, at least in the US. The FDA is undermanned, overmatched, and subject to a constant barrage of largely ignorant criticism. Drug companies have the ears of legislators and, often, the ghostwritten imprimatur of academic medical centers and researchers. But the alternative medicine industry in the US would drink hemlock before it would submit to 1/1,000th of the regulation that the pharmaceutical industry is subject to. So it's irrational at best and cynically hypocritical at worst to rail against drug companies and turn around and hawk an alternative medical remedy as the "answer". That's pharmanoia. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be copied to the talk page for the benefit of readers and editors there. I totally agree with your comments and have added comments in a similar vein there. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:Edit warring; you may be blocked if you persist

I fail to see how you have behaved any differently than I. Per those rules, 3 reverts, 24 hours. There is a currently open rfc, and discussion on two talk pages regarding this page. Why do you feel that it is acceptable to wholesale delete information of encyclopedic content, that verifiable, unbiased, and referenced. Neuromancer (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:AIDS denialism#HIV dissent indicates that that article is a content fork written with a particular slant. When your proposed edits are rejected following discussion from an article for reason of being based on unreliable sources or synthesizing a novel conclusion, available remedies do not include writing a new version of the article as you wish it to be under a different name. Productive solutions include appeal to relevant noticeboards or wikiprojects for outside input, delve for new more reliable sources indicating that proper weight in coverage of the topic includes your proposed material, and take on board the advice of you fellow volunteer editors.

Oddly enough, I actually did read the material before redirecting the article. It remains available in the edit history should you care to reference it in collaborative discussion at Talk:AIDS denialism. I do not see where at present it should be included in AIDS denialism, but am willing to be convinced otherwise. This is distinct from nominating the article for deletion. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The information is sound, and there are no sources more recent than those I have included. I have looked, and none of the current editors are able to cite more recent references. I have asked. I have had articles nominated for deletion, and then before they are able to be reviewed by the community at large, the pages are deleted and forwarded to AIDS denialism. No discussion, other than "we think you are wrong" but when I ask why, no one is able to contradict the information that I have spent countless hours researching in medical journals. My references are not to clandestine fringe websites, but rather actual, peer reviewed, published journal articles. If my information is so out of date, then why isn't anyone able to provide references to the contrary? Why do they just delete it? Neuromancer (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you maintain that the ordering and inclusion correspondences of the lists here and here are purely coincidental? That strains credulity. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this last response. The list was in fact compiled, and published by someone else, and unless someone has since deleted it, her name is given. The references however are sound, and I have read each of the articles. Notice that the reference list on Alternative HIV viewpoints does not contain each of the references in the VirusMyth site you listed. That same list can be found here and here, and with references to it here and here. I am sure other sources can be found with that same list. Each of those conditions has been shown to provide false positives on HIV antibody tests, and each condition is referenced to published (peer reviewed) journal articles clearly stating as much.  Neuromancer  08:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello, 2over0. 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. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For archival purposes: #Please read WP:Edit warring; you may be blocked if you persist, Talk:HIV dissent, Talk:AIDS denialism#HIV dissent and several threads at Talk:Neuromancer. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How is this not canvassing? I have done the same thing (Posting to a previously involved editor regarding a current conversation), and I have been accused of canvassing.  Neuromancer  08:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVASS, the scope is limited and targeted by participation without regard to agreement in any particular discussion (I glanced at KCACO's contributions when this was posted, and it appeared that all of the most active participants in the relevant discussions had been included), and the notification is neutrally presented (I expect that it was generated using or at least closely based on {{ANI-notice}}). My reply above is mostly for myself if I want to track down an old issue in my talk archives some months hence, but also it indicates to anyone checking for canvassing that the notification was appropriate as Keepcalmandcarryon could reasonably expect that I might be interested in the above-linked discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see these posts to other users talk pages as canvassing in an attempt to get me banned. You are not asking uninvolved editors for their opinion. You are asking the very people who find me contentious to vote against keeping me. I fail to see how that is not canvassing. For example Craftyminion and I did not have any direct issue, nor have they previously complained about me, nor were they previously involved in the discussion on the notice board. So yes, by definition, this is canvassing. The only way in which you could have seen any involvement between Crafty and myself, would have been to follow my edits. The user is welcome to find the controversy himself, but to seek out a user who might potentially vote against me seems wrong. Let me know if my interpretation here is incorrect. Thank you. Neuromancer (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Going by the chart at WP:CANVASS, I limited the scale to those users who had already contributed to that thread, phrased the notice as neutrally as my wordsmithing abilities would allow, and left a comment at the primary discussion that I had done so. Craftyminion left a comment at that thread at 01:50 2009-11-10 server time. If I omitted anyone, please let me know or notify them yourself.

I posted exactly the same message to the talkpage of everyone who had commented at that thread, with the exceptions of myself and Keepcalmandcarryon; example notification. My notification to KCACO also included an apology for notifying them of a thread to which they had recently contributed and may reasonably be assumed to be watching; given that that thread has been petering out, as long AN/I threads are wont to do, I decided to err on the side of caution. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Sorry, it was probably due to some lag as I didn't see it; someone already moved it, but thanks for informing me. -- fetchcomms☛ 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Biorhythm software and links

Hi! I guess that's a better place to post my comment. Why did you remove product names and links altogether? I think it's not the way it should be! This is supposed to be an objective, factual, and modern encyclopedia. Biorhythm software is a major part of biorhythm application today! In fact software nowadays in the area of biorhythms is much more important than it used to be in the 80s when biorhythm were more popular. Thus simply mentioning it in one phrase generically does not suffice at all, in my opinion. Besides there is an enormous amount of articles that mention software and do include external links. For instance this is the article I came across yesterday – Dlna – and under PC Integration it mentions all major software products for DLNA and their external links! In that regard I see no reason not to mention 2 or 3 most popular and recent software products for biorhythms and external links to them. I certainly see your point that Wikipedia is not a directory; however the inclusion of links to prevaling software on a particular subject, in my opinion, by no means violates this rule. In fact, there exist so many pages on Wikipedia that actually compare different software in their functionality anbd of course include external links. Sure, biorhythm software is not as popular as say Photoshop, but it cannot be a reason to ignore it, because within the area of biorhythms, it is an important part of today's subject on biorhythms.--George (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Biorhythm#Software with reply. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI + Neuro

Hi 2/0, just as I've been following Neuromancer's thing on ANI and now it's been archived (I believe), does that mean it's over? JoeSmack ^Talk 06:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody ever closed it, but AN/I threads get archived 24 hours after the last signature; they can always be unarchived if you have additional points to make. I think, though, only a determined wikilawyer would argue that consensus had not been expressed. If they violate the topic ban or try to game the system in some way, it might be best to start a new thread pointing to the old one to request that a different uninvolved admin explain matters and, if necessary, issue a block. On the other hand, Neuromancer may have de facto accepted the consensus for a topic ban. There was also some talk of a mentorship agreement with Casliber. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

I already mentioned this at my talk page, but just to be sure you're aware: your RfA is live! See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2over0. And good luck! MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You fools! Good luck, as always. :) Verbal chat 19:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

14 supports – time to WP:SNOW close this yet? And Verbal, that is 1 mile (1.609344 km). - 2/0 (cont.) 20:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not up to 50! Also, three new talk page stalkers – hey there. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

14 hours to go... MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about switching to neutral. You're now at 88 supports. If I switch to neutral and you pick up a few more votes, I could jump back in as #100. Always wanted to do that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

88/0/0? Sounds familiar. Although the best admins do a have a few neutrals sprinkled in to keep them humble. MastCell ^Talk 06:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh – does that mean that I will be expected to live up to the standards and contributions of {maximum: Raymond arritt; MastCell}? I would jump in and oppose myself myself, but that might be taken as a WP:POINT violation. Besides, after this thread it would be obvious that I would be operating as an disruptive meatpuppet of myself. I am not sure my patience and ability to apply WP:DENY extend quite that far, and I would really prefer to avoid being compelled to block myself for wheel warring with myself over whether or not I should be blocked until at least Boxing Day. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to change your handle to 88over0over0 (talk · contribs). For some reason I want a curry with naan now, maybe because I was at a party last night where an astronaut (is there a different ESA term?) was singing foxy lady wearing a catsuit, in a synchrotron... Science is weird. Verbal chat 10:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds like an excellent idea. Unfortunately, it is a holiday here in the States and my oven does not get hot enough to make good naan, so suffer I shall. And kippers vindaloo is right out. Although that does give me an excuse to share the story of how I learned all about solar chimneys while hitting on a drunken robot. I was reminded of this last night by the latest FT/N thread, but decided that it was too off topic for there. Also, if you were at ESRF and did not invite me, I will be sad.

Any talk page stalkers who have not yet voiced an opinion? You have about two hours to generate an apparent conflict of interest you can point to for years to come. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I will be eating Turman for most of the rest of the day. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I only got a lowly visitor pass for this event (they wouldn't renew my beautiful picture ID), but I'm sure I could arrange something – although technically this was an ILL pot :) How do you get a robot drunk? Verbal chat 00:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ask a glass of water? Or believe the silver-painted entomologist when she claims to be part of the Future Robot Overlord taskforce to research the weaknesses of all organic life forms, and requires a larger sample of ethanol for chemical analysis.

Hmmm, ILL says they have the most intense neutrons, and SNS claims powerful. I usually want brilliance, though I suppose you do not generally monochromate a neutron beam; still, needs must make sure the unit names have not gotten mixed up with English usages. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexing Snakes

Hi Hope mine talking the right person? Just seen that an article Called Sexing Snakes that I posted as been removed. This article is my literature from my website (www.rightcomp.co.uk) to conform. you can contact me via admin@snakeinfo.co.uk or via the like on the website Thanks Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissnakeman (talk • contribs) 04:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now an admin

And in time for Thanksgiving too. I'm pleased to let you know that I have closed your RFA as successful, and that you are now an admin! We are fortunate indeed to have you within our ranks, and I hope you will be able to take your contributions to the next level with the help of the admin tools. If you'd like to try them out, you can head over to New Admin School. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me or another administrator. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah! Thank you one and all for your kind words and support – I shall endeavor to live up to both. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the moppery, and drop by to chat any time. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Couldn't have happened to a better editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Commiserations. Verbal chat 19:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck! — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 20:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done, if you have any questions, just ask MastCell (or blame him, either way). :) Risker (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

← Congratulations! I'm glad to see things went so well. It's almost enough to restore my faith in RfA as a process. :P Now click here to get started. I take no responsibility for the results. MastCell ^Talk 00:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats and Commiserations ;) Unomi (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know you were a candidate! (Shows how out of it I am, politics-wise.) I would have voted for you, obviously. Congratulations and please don't press all the buttons at once. Eubulides (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Congratulations. Mathsci (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Contgratulations! Since your RfA had universal support, and everyone was united in wanting it to succeed, you can say it was "divided by zero"! Very auspicious. -- Atama頭 19:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wot, no opposition? Well done! Fences&Windows 02:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA. Mkdw^talk 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your adminship! DigitalC (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Your block of Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

It was correct and within policy, but would you object if I lifted it? The editor does appear to have been trying to edit constructively (while the offending edits certainly qualified as reverts, most made some change to the reverted-to version; it was sort of a "seeking consensus through edit-warring" thing). Besides that, he appears to have been unaware of the specific details of WP:3RR (surrounding what constitutes a revert). In view of that, I'd like to unblock with a warning. Steve Smith (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk – go for it, and thanks for the notification. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

drowningman article

I'm very new to wikipedia. I removed all copy written material. It was a bio of a band that I played in and had many factual errors so I re-wrote it. I do need to work on the encyclopedic style v. the essay style.

The material by the party asserting copyright infringement has been removed as of the last version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnonono123 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I just declined the new speedy – the new version looks great. Thank you for understanding that Wikipedia cannot host content incompatible with CC-BY-SA. And thank you for reminding me of The Dillinger Escape Plan – I have not heard them since college. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen

Thank you for your note. I am not an administrator (just a user who noticed the edit war). I'm in complete agreement that protecting the article was a Good Thing, since my warnings appeared to be falling on deaf ears. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I swear we almost collided as we rushed past each other there LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bowling for Columbine

Please will you acknowledge that Williamsburgland has added sources of a questionable nature to Bowling for Columbine. If said user can find the same criticism(s) published by reliable third-party source(s) then the section can remain; if not, it has to be removed quickly. Dynablaster (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think raising the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard would bring a more permanent and decisive solution to the coatracking in that article. I can make the post if you would like. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary? The sources clearly predate the film -- apart from one, which is self-published. If Williamsburgland wishes to add criticism of Bowling for Columbine, then he needs to find a source that deals specifically with the aforementioned film. He can't do this by copying statistics from an article that preceded the film he wishes to attack (that is original research!). Dynablaster (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but it looks from here like the best way to ensure that sources are being used correctly. This is not really a situation where the admin tools can be used to greatest effectiveness. If the RS/N folks agree with you about the original synthesis, you can point to that firm consensus any time some future editor tries to abuse sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will you kindly make the post? Not done this before. Thankyou. Dynablaster (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. If you see this before I get a chance, could you point out any difference links that are particularly relevant to such a discussion that were not included in the 3RR report diffs? Also, please feel free to prod me if more than another day or so has passed. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Bowling for Columbine – 2/0 (cont.) 19:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Chorra

Hi Fellow editor. I really do not know what to do. This user has a nasty habit of removing references he does not like. He seems to thing he WP:OWN's article Gujjar. I keep trying to reason with him but he just keeps trying to revert. I have even removed contentious references to appease him, but he seems fixated on what I can only describe is a "Hinducentric" view of the Gujjar Tribe. Please help. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have been checking back at that page every day or so, and the most recent edits indicate a definite disregard for warnings and collaborative efforts. Blocked temporarily. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, you have been misspelling their handle – two "h"es, on "r". - 2/0 (cont.) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

CASHX

Hi. I removed your speedy tag from CASHX because the author asserts on the talk page that he's the creator of the apparently copyvio material. On the other hand there's an AfD for non-notability that you might want to participate in. andy (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but...

The block I think was a good call. They seem not to understand what 3RR means even though they've been around so I am not sure I will get anywhere.--BozMo talk 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Jim Inhofe

I hereby request that you put the {{POV}} template up on the Jim Inhofe page to reflect the fact that there is an on-going POV dispute on that page. --GoRight (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia:Protection policy, as soon as there is consensus for such an edit at Talk:Jim Inhofe#Protected, I would be happy to. If I am not online, feel free to add {{editprotected}} to the section. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but of course this is your response especially given the current state of the article. --GoRight (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You might also ask the good people at NPOV/N to review the issue – a discussion there could form a valid consensus for editing through protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my previous snarkiness. This is a good suggestion. I was unaware that such a noticeboard existed. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Link for the archive: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Jim Inhofe. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Hi there, could you comment here? The discussion seems to have petered out. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I really want the best for the IE, and A merique just makes it hard on me by reverting me with out talking. But thanks for not blocking me and hopefully I can arrange some peace w/ Amerique. House1090 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Inland Empire (California)

Could you block the Inland Empire (California) article a user is starting an edit war with me again, and I dont want trouble so please act quickly, I am trying to avoid it as much as possible. Thank-You House1090 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder protected the article and Wikiproject California is seems to have a discussion going now – good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Collapse

Thanks for this [45]. We need more of that kind of action William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the climate email article protected entirely during this important period

This seems entirely against Wikipedia's norms and traditions. 76.111.71.133 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is currently only locked from new or unregistered accounts due to the high level of disruption resulting from the incident's current prominence in the blogosphere; not that the registered accounts are behaving all that much better, but they are at least negotiating with each other. See Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 6#Disruption for more. As nobody should be making edits to that article without a firm consensus of involved editors, you should be at no particular disadvantage to having your contributions added to the article if you make a specific and well-reasoned proposal to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which I see you have already found. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ACE2009

My votes are in, but I found myself unable to support a full slate. This is okay in terms of democracy, but I wish that {in touch with content issues ∩ skilled mediator ∩ willing and able to put up with ArbCom cases} were a larger set. I support six people based mostly on positive personal interactions (including moral support for unlikely candidates; go Cubs!), and oppose nine based evenly on negative impression of appropriateness and weak or wrong-headed answers to questions. I may revisit two or three of the neutrals before the 14th, but mostly if I have not seen you around enough to have formed at least a vague opinion I have no business trying to assess your ability to rationate, mediate, and provide support for building the encyclopedia. I will, however, vote unreservedly to support anyone who posts at least 500 words of The Trial / Wikipedia slash fiction. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Inquiring minds... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman}}. Do I win? Or do you need an explicit scene between Joseph K. and Jimbo? MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw, MastCell, you tease – you know I support the conscription model instead of waiting for people to volunteer for ArbCom.

@SBHB ... taste good with breakfast. I opposed Cla68 because I was dissatisfied primarily with their answers to Will Beback and NE2 even though I generally have a high view of their contributions. Steve Smith supports serial commas but not the singular they, so I had to judge by past interactions (also as SarcasticIdealist, which explains where this new guy I had never heard of until recently gets off making so much sense) and lack of glaring red flags. Ruslik0 was easy, as I have a vested interest in ensuring that the physicist lobby has a strong ArbCom presence. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

User:Rameses seems to have a bit of trouble with our canvassing rules. They initially notified only "one side" of a dispute with a decidedly non-neutral message. After I dropped a template they made the notice more neutral, but still seem to be notifying only "one side". Should the messages be removed? The damage is already done (I doubt these people were generally unaware, apart from ABD) so I'm not sure if that's worth it, but they do need to get the message to stop. Also, some of the material they have posted to articles (of their own creation) looks highly dubious, attacking named wikipedia editors. Cheers, Verbal chat 13:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)(Merry Christmas!)

R has form. Since this has come up, you might ponder the question of whether his user page is "suitable". See-also [46] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought Rameses/Brittainia was indef blocked? He should at least be restricted to one account. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering why that AfD attracted so much notice so quickly. I considered just leaving it malformed for someone else to deal with or removing it as potentially the bad-faith work of a sockpuppet, but decided the process might be useful. Either he passes PROF#1 or he does not, either way the discussion should be illuminating. The theorem prover is definitely notable, so no information is in danger of being lost.

Wikiproganda on Global Warming is far more worrisome in terms of WP:HERE, as the original version was both a bit of an attack page and quoted enough of the source article (singular) to, in my opinion, run afoul of WP:COPYVIO. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey! You're uninvolved

The problem with Ed is finding an uninvolved admin. Its why I took this to ANI. However... [47] Care to do the honors? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, tempting; all these shiny new buttons. I was hoping to get by on just my editor hat today, though, after spending all day yesterday at AN3. I have edited 188 of the same articles at some point over the years – let me check my evidence, that remedy, and my conscience to see if I am uninvolved enough. Feel free to prod me again if there is no word by, say 0600 server time. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ed's edited so many articles its impossible to find an admin who doesn't have some crossover. But you haven't been editing Moonie articles, right? I didn't see any. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, User:Kafziel has implemented the ban. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I am guessing that that is what most of those are. And no, I have never even heard of UC outside of WP, nor edited their articles unless maybe following a vandal. Still, if three years ago I said People like you suck – stay away from the Index of sexology articles or I am going to see you banned, I would at least like to know before acting.

Alright, thanks for thinking of me. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

:-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder

Re Please do not restrict tedder from administrative actions in this topic area. Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and the Copenhagen conference are making it a hotbed of disputes right now, and they have been invaluable in trying to maintain a calm and collegial editing environment. [48]: That statement is easy to misintepret. It would be natural to think you mean that T has helped Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident and other articles. This isn't true (insofar as I'm aware). He has only been involved at SOoCC (and as for his efforts there, I will judge him by the results). I think you should rephrase yourself (I also think you should you should re-appraise Tedders actions, but that is another matter, and not one in which I think I have much hope of success).

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I mean – tedder protected the CRU hacking incident article on 28 November, and started a discussion about it here, with talkpage followup over the next day or so. They also (un)blocked both GoRight and ZuluPapa5 ... hm, on review I seem to have had a biased view of their level of activity in the area in the past few weeks (two articles I have been mostly trying to keep up with, plus twice popping up in an admin capacity on unrelated articles on my watchlist). Basically, I think that it is much easier to try to enforce consensus when it is clearly expressed, which I am not sure that it was at that point. If that has changed, request unprotection or editprotected and I will follow that (note: I have not checked SOoCC in a few hours, so this comment may be outdated already). - 2/0 (cont.) 01:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd missed the prot there – it was a long time in the past, as these things go. Thank you for correcting me William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of High yield trading fund

An article that you have been involved in editing, High yield trading fund, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High yield trading fund. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why you declined the speedy deletion on this article. The article provides zero sources, and a search returns zero secondary sources. The only source that can be found is a company by the same name (WP:ADVERT). SnottyWong talk 13:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Commented, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder's

I think you assume too much in stating that Tedder's "seems receptive to moving forward within the community norms." A definitive statement from him saying he's not going to protect pages after editing (even more so, edit-warring on) them, and that he understand it's not in his perview as an admin to "bless" tags, is pretty much the minimum that would prevent me from waiting for the other shoe to drop. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That is fair. Tedder seems to be going about other adminy stuff for now, though I am of course not privy to their thoughts. I made a proposal for how to go forward from here near the bottom of that AN/I thread – do you have a better idea? I would support a request for a firmer statement if you would like to propose such a thing, but I have no particular interest in shaming a productive editor or otherwise dragging this out. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There are really four options – he can say nothing and never make another mistake. If that happens, fine. He can say something, and fuck up something different. Then I'll ask him to fix something different. He can say something, and fuck up the same thing. Then I'll go after his bit for lying about understanding the rules or just being too stupid to get it. Or, he can say nothing, and fuck up anything, ever, and I'll go after his bit for being a bad admin. It's up to him to either say something or not say something, to mean what he says or not mean what he says, and to start being careful, or remain reckless. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would settle for an admission of improper behaviour in respect to 3RR and protecting after reverting, and a promise not to editwar over that tag on that article again. I hope I don't seem too worked up about this, I'm not. I just don't think such clearly incorrect behaviour despite prior warnings should be allowed to stand, with the admin not acknowledging the error. Verbal chat 18:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoosh! Editors passing in the night on the way to each others' talkpages – hi, Verbal. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I am going to back off of this, then. I think I have been arguing for bureaucratic process in one way and against it in another – time to just let consensus work its magic. I doubt SOoCC should be unprotected in the near term, but I will keep half an eye out in case consensus develops to remove the tag or the personal attacks and disputes not aimed at improving the article flare up again or whatever. Or I can just let Beeblebrox handle it, that sounds good. Hipocrite – your reply to my post to Verbal's talkpage was particularly persuasive. Verbal – thanks for staying reasonable. If anyone needs me, I will be at CSD. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for these comments. I am inexperienced on Wikipedia and did not even know that I had a user talk page until just now. I also was not aware of the copyright issues which you pointed out to me. Thank you very much for letting me know, and I will try to be very careful in the future to avoid any copyright problems.Jenday (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC

Block of Brittainia

You site the abuse of multiple accounts as one of the reasons for blocking Brittania. Was there an SPI investigation? If so can you please direct me to it. If not, can you please justify the claim? --GoRight (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is perfectly appropriate, thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive77#Ramses and Brittainia RFCU – sockpuppeting confirmed. Do you think I should include the link with the blocking templates? - 2/0 (cont.) 01:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Up to you. What precipitated this action, was it the vote mentioned below? Do we know which is the main account for this user? --GoRight (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, this is from when they were after Uber. I see that this claim/confirmation of sock puppetry was made by Raul654, so I would like to have this independently confirmed since Raul had to give up his checkuser privileges after it was determined that he had abused them. How would I go about doing that? --GoRight (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure. Probably WP:SPI; I could add a correction to the block log if that came back negative. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Would be pointless – they confirmed editing from the same computer with the explanation that they were a family. So there is no doubt that a checkuser would have confirmed that they were the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I have already submitted the request. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rameses. --GoRight (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no "perhaps" about it -- "they" freely admitted it. And you're allowed to withdraw the request: doing so would remove an unnecessary burden from the people who work WP:SPI. (Assuming that you care about such things.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, then I request a review of this user's vote here, and a determination of whether the vote should stand, or not, since it was obviously made prior to the block and it remains unclear whether that vote is considered to be an abusive one. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris mentioned a couple threads up and at User talk:Brittainia that the two were the same. As they have been editing in the same area, I requested clarification at talk:SBHB. The other reasons, in my opinion, justify the block in themselves, which is why I indefinitely blocked both accounts instead of waiting for clarification or an assurance that they would use only one account. If one account asks to be unblocked and provides reasonable assurance that they will abide by site policies, I would not object to an uninvolved admin unblocking after a review of their contributions.

I was not aware that the contribution had been stricken. As voting is evil and User:Rameses has not edited that page, I think that the comment should stand with the note. I will go see if KDP is ok with this. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What specifically is the request – that we "unstrike" and just leave the note? I have no specific grundges about that, but we should also note that she wasn't part of the discussions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not as much a question of voting as a notice so that we can weight consensus amongst editors (which he/she isn't any more). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say either leave it as in the link above or, better, {{collapse}} the sub-discussion after the note that the user has been blocked. Striking, to my mind, should be reserved for cases where both accounts comment on the same discussion or for certain long-term highly abusive sock puppeteers. I would like to back off that article and let Beeblebrox and editprotected do their thing, but that is my 2¢. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me. --GoRight (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

bold edit at Lindzen

[49] and [50]. You appear to be an uninvolved admin, here. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite cynical enough to protect an article on suspicion of future edit warring, but I will extend some serious good faith with respect to blanking so much of that article. Please get your proposal to the talkpage soonest. Remember that you removed the smoking and the fees and expenses sections as well, at least some of which needs to go in the new, improved, and not very long delayed version. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The expenses & fees section is also tripe (recall, Lindzen, apparently, did some sort of contracting in the mid 1990s for the fossil fuel industry, in some unspecified capacity, and hasn't taken money since, to the tune of $10,000, probably enough to reduce a mortage by about 1%. No one, AFAIK, knows what he did, and no one, as far as I can see, even cares. I sent Ross Gelbspan, the journalist responsible for this shady piece of history, an email asking him for some more detail and he ignored me). It has been likewise the subject of vast amounts of edit-warring, wasted discussions, and as you correctly pointed out, wasted WP bandwidth. Whilst the expenses & fees section remains in the article the article will continue to function as a troll magnet. I can put together 100 words, as I said, to include what is historically relevant, but as you can see, the WP climate change gang isn't going to accept it. I need support from an uninvolved admin. Of course, you're probably not going to be viewed as uninvolved any more. :( Alex Harvey (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, I may be amenable to a compromise on the Gelbspan allegation, if enough previously uninvolved people disagree with me that it is not historically relevant (I just hate the idea that we're actually creating history here... which of course we are...), and your in principle support for a seriously cut-down version of the article could also help to end the conflict there... Alex Harvey (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not checked the sources, but if the contracting is so minor you might try cutting to a sentence in Career or asking at WP:NPOV/N how it should be weighted. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)