User talk:Vsmith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:39, 23 December 2012

Please note - rules of the game! I usually answer comments & questions on this page rather than on your talk (unless initiated there) to keep the conversation thread together. I am aware that some wikiers do things differently so let me know if you expect a reply on your page and maybe it'll happen :-)

SILVER SOL

Take it to the article talk page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

hello, could you please not delete my edit? If you feel its not neutral or its promotional kindly edit it to be neutral. I personally don't see it this way, on the page of every approved medicine by the fda there is a mention of the name of the company which developed it. See for example prozac or tadalafil. This gel isn't alternative medicine, it is a mainstream drug, just as any other drug. It can be prescribed by normal doctors. Its fda approved. 70.39.186.229 (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir[reply]

Find some independent sources which discuss or review the product. Commercial websites, patent aps and FDA "letters" won't do it. And... who are you? Please log in. Vsmith (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FDA is an independent source. It's not FDA "letters". It's FDA official approval. I'm Ryanspir and I'm not a part of that company and has nothing to do with colloidal silver. I just want the information provided on this page to be unbiased and updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

Hello,

I'm not promoting commercial product. I didn't write for example that it cures all or anything.

1. I think you are mistaken. Any FDA approved drug may and should have info about it on wikipedia. Please look prozac or cialis articles for example. They do contain info about the manufacturer. I don't see any reason why FDA approved drugs containing colloidal silver product should be treated differently. I did provide a link to their website, because meanwhile this company has no entry in wikipedia. However, once the entry will be created I'll change the link.

2. "Silver is also promoted within alternative medicine in the form of colloidal silver, although it has not been shown to be safe or effective.[1]" This is what is written in the lead. This became absolutely false and misleading all the readers from the year of 2009 when FDA approved this form of colloidal silver. *It is a regular drug now, which can and is prescribed by the doctor. Do you agree with me? Because the fact of FDA approval makes it impossible to consider this variant of colloidal silver as not safe or as not effective. Are we together?

3. The whole article about colloidal silver is written in very bad, biased and in negative way. Why wouldn't you fix that? Looking at the talk page it's not only me who holds this opinion. Its currently written in a way, that shows that colloidal silver is mainly quackery and it may turn you blue and create side-effects. Did you ever hear that FDA will approve quackery drugs? Did you ever hear that EPA will approve quackery agents and allow them to be used by hospitals in the US? This article should be edited in the light of FDA approval of colloidal silver in 2009. We know also that FDA is not a fan of approving colloidal silver, it took years for it to be approved. So we can easily deduct that the company have provided enough scientific evidence to FDA supporting it's claims.

4. I have just listed the facts in my edit and I was very brief. Saying for example that this is the first colloidal silver approved by FDA is not a promotion, it's a fact. Listing of the patents, besides including additional info for the interested user also shows that silver sol is a variation of colloidal silver.

5. "In August 1999, the FDA banned colloidal silver sellers from claiming any therapeutic or preventive value for the product..". As you see, HERE you are satisfied that if FDA said so, no additional independent sources are needed in order to state that fact on wikipedia. So, in 2009 FDA has reversed it's position by granting its approval. It's obvious that the cited information is wrong now and outdated from 2009 and till this moment.

6. Etc, etc, etc. There is so many things that are currently wrong in the article and I can talk for ages. So I was a bit shocked that you have reversed my edit which contains updated factual information while at the same time you do allow all the wrong and well outdated info to stay on the page. Most of the cited negative publications were written well prior to 2009. But the medical community is advancing, new forms of colloidal silvers being developed which wikipedia should reflect.

If you are not satisfied with the link to their website or to the EPA approval, or you find any sentence which looks to you promotional, please change/edit that particular link or sentence, but do not delete the whole section.*

If you would like me anything to change or add, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you are mixing things up a bit. A product used as an external ointment is of course not going to have the same treatment as one used internally. But this all belongs on the article talk page.

The inclusion of information about some new medication simply needs some WP:reliable sources that are independent of the product and not just patent and FDA memos or whatever. Write a solid well referenced article about this product independent of the "colloidal silver" nonsense and then perhaps add mention in the medical uses of silver page. Your other concerns regarding the article and "colloidal silver" stuff needs to be discussed on the talk there independently of your "new product" article or article addition. Vsmith (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colloidal silver nonsense

Haha :-). I caught you red handed. When you say colloidal silver nonsense it shows that you are personally biased regarding the subject. As a result of this the article contains wrong info and doesn't contain the right info. I suggest you inhibit yourself from watchlisting this article. Alternatively, lets elevate it further. The link i provided is not fda memo. Its the official fda approval. Any drug as long as its fda approved has the right to be listed as a drug on the wikipedia, it doesn't matter if its for internal or external use. Interestingly enough, when it was said previously that fda warns about using cs, now that was simple a letter and yet you allowed this statement to exist on the page. You are using double standards. :) also, about us patent, do you think they have no verification process? Anyone can create a snake oil for treating humans and they will issue a patent for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.186.173 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Well, they have issued patents for perpetual motion machines. Chris857 (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and double standarts

i'm sure that if i would add additional warnings around the sections and cite fda letters or memos, you wouldn't object. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.186.209 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article talk page and sign in please. Vsmith (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To talkstalker

Haha :). The link you have provided is for international patents and indeed it mentions some hits for perpetual motion. However same search on US Patent site didn't show any hits. Probably some countries have less stringent rules for inclusion. So sorry, but even on this side point no win :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.186.173 (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read further - only the first was French. Vsmith (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:medrs

i hope i'm signed now. Lets look at subject. It says: statements from nation or internation recognized expert bodies. So, will you contradict that fda is such a body? Or you contradict the fact that the link which i provided clearly allows the company to distribute the cs gel in us and it also specifies the indications as it is done by fda for any drug? Isn't that link even if it would be a memo or a letter doesn't show the position of fda regarding the product? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, you've logged in -- now you need to learn to sign your talk comments. To do that, just type four tildes at the end ( ~~~~ ) and Wiki software replaces that with your username and timestamp. As for WP:MEDRS, seems another user referred you to that, altho I agree. FDA documents can be used, but are not sufficient. Need further 3rd party references. And, take it to the article talk please as I'm not the only editor involved. Vsmith (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patents for talk stalker

hehe :). I cannot see any approved patent for perpetual motion. It seems that the link you provided also lists simply submitted and not approved patents. :) i'm still winning on this point unless you can provide seven digit number for an approved us patent for perpetual motion in the last ten years. :) 70.39.186.237 (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Ryanspir[reply]

Please read this

http://lifesilver.com/testimony.htm This link contains u.S congressional report about silver sol. As they state a copy of this can be found at library of congress. An additional resource is http://silversol.soundconcepts.com/faqs.aspx as of special interest for you read statement of surgeon general of us airforce pk carlton md who recommends it being used in military and the protection of the civilians. Sorry cannot sign, some issue in my mobile phone, ryanspir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 09:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please let me know if you have read the provided information. If you will think logically, think like that: if cs is a snake oil, or not effective, or has harmful side effects, or has got anything else bad at all, why would a doctor who is surgeon general of us airforce recommend its usage? First of all, he knows that military will conduct super stringent tests before accepting it. So he must be pretty sure it will pass all tests otherwise he would have discredited himself. Why would he even risk this scenario being a military doctor? The most logical reason is that he was convinced by the produced studies, saw efficiency and absence of side-effects. ryanspir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.184.147 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

Neutral opinions

Please read this Washington Post opinion:

A good deal for the District and Puerto Rico

Please read The New York Times Opinion:

Will Puerto Rico Be America’s 51st State?

Please read the Boston Herald Opinion:

Puerto Rican statehood By Boston Herald Editorial Staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.82.115 (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Not really interested in political squabbling. Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wp:medrs

So can you put back my edit? In Wp:medrs it says OR, not and. Thus fda position statement shall suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.184.146 (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there is no "my edit" to put, the above is your only edit ip202.144.184.146. Vsmith (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Sol section edit

Could you please put back my edit regarding section Silver Sol which you have removed? This is in light of the additional explanation and the correct adherence of my edit to wp:medrs. A quote from WP:MEDRS - "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies." Please see "or" before the word medical, which means position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies is sufficient. The link to FDA approval letter for ASAP silver sol gel is the position statetemnt of FDA, which is a recognized expert body. That letter says that FDA recognizes it as an official drug and allows it's sell in the country and use/prescription.

1 - This is a database of FDA clearances. Kindly seach entry: DEVICE: ASAP ANTIMICROBIAL SILVER WOUND DRESSING GEL.

In addition: [www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/K082333.pdf Quote:] "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce.." Please reflect upon: "..have determined the device is substantially equivalent.."

Ryanspir (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)ryanspir[reply]

replied on article talk. Vsmith (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding Earth Bibliography

Dear Vsmith,

Dougweller wrote to me, that it is not possible to insert a link to a publication without owning the copy-right, because this would be a copyright-violation. So if you delete links inserted by the copyrightholders themselves calling it self-publication, you cannot insert any links at all. Then all articles you referred to in the "Notes" are eiter self-publications or copyright-violations, and there are many links to various scientific artiles on your pages.

Yours sincerely - Geomensch

You dont want only outdated historical literature on Wikipedia, do you? Kind regards - Geomensch

First, you don't have to own the copyright to references you use and link on Wikipedia. That is not what DougWeller said.

Quite simply, we don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff. The ~35 page print on demand book I removed a link to is available on Amazon for $$. You linking to it appears as a WP:COI. Please read WP:RS, WP:Fringe and WP:Spam.

I have never linked to a work that I own copyright to.

An outdated scientific concept will most likely be sourced to historical literature. Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geomensch (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vsmith,

DougWeller wrote to me, that he thought the linking to the PDF supposively was a copyright violation and therefore he removed it from the Wikipedi page. He asked me, if I have the copyright or not and he gave me a warning because of an assumed copyright-violation, that did not happen as we now know. The link was inserted again and he accepted. No reason for deletion exists.

Please read the impressum on page 1: All rights reserved to the author. Although to book can be bought from Amazon and from many other book-stores, I keep the right to give it as PDF as free contribution to the geoscientists. The editor Books on Demand did not get the copyright for it. This is unusual, I know. But Books on Demand allows the authors to keep all the rights and then publish the work with another editor. I can give this to a scientific journal and then I will give the copyright to them. As long as I don't do this, I can improve the content by the feed-back of all my colleagues all over the world. As it has an ISBN, I can show it to anyone without any danger of plagiarism. This is, what I did for some time and know the work is complete.

There is no conflict of interest because Amazon does NOT have any right to be the only one to sell the book. There are other book-stores who sell it as well. Everyone can make his own price. They can sell it cheeper or more expensive or give it for free if they want to. The only person, who has rights is me. I can make this available as a gift without violating any rights of any other person because they don't have them. Only after giving it to a journal, the copyright belongs to the journal.

Now my question to you: Were all the articles linked to on Wikipedia linked by the editors of these journals themselves as copyright-owners? Who did it? Anyone can do this, if the article can be read for free and the journal does not take a fee. Some articles cost a fee. For others free access is provided. This is the decision of the copyright-owner alone.

"We don't use Wikipedia to promote our own stuff". Whose "stuff" should it be? What will you do, when someone else inserts a link to my article? The question is not, to whom something belongs, but if the scientific quality is good. This is the most and only important criteria. If the Bibliography on the Wikipedia-page about Earth Expansion is considered a "collection of crazy ideas" anyways, then Wikipedia can very well add another new crazy idea to it. Beleive me, there are much more worthy places for this link than here.

My new publication has been read by so many thousands of scientists already. It is going all over the world and taken notice of with high appreciation, as I was able to end the conflict between crazy earth-expansion theories and today's knowledge about plate tectonics. I have had heavy scientific discussions with expansionists teaching things completely out of scope, as I wrote in the book. The historical importance of this work is a very good reason to add it to the Wikipedia-Bibliography. Even about a probably outdated theory the list of literature should not be outdated. In the first place it should be complete.

Kind regards - Geomensch Geomensch (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I decided to download the paper to see for myself what it said. Problem occurred, as my anti-virus program flashed a big red warning regarding the site ... so I backed out. For that additional problem we won't link to it from a WP article. Vsmith (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your comments above reveal a basic lack of understanding about what Wikipedia is or how it functions. Please take some time to learn about this encyclopedia. (note: I've formatted your comment above for readability) Vsmith (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This warning comes routinely from the upload area for every document, because the upload area cannot take the responsibility for the downloads. If you answer "yes" that you want to do the download, everything will be okay. If this warning appears in big red letters for other users, this might be irritating and must be changed. So what would you suggest?

Geomensch (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest finding a different host. Vsmith (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 93, NO. 11, 10 DECEMBER 2007 article by Herndon is clearly copyvio. As I've said, we can link to an official site for a journal article, but we cannot link to that article anywhere else. And although you can probably go through the procedures necessary to show that your article is copyright free, etc, that doesn't mean you can add it to an article and I doubt that you'll be able to without being reverted. Wikipedia is not a forum for new ideas. When it's published, or perhaps if it gets discussed by sources that are acceptable, maybe then, but even in that case you'd be expected to suggest it on article talk pages and not add it yourself. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant words re Herndon are at wp:LINKVIO. That said, wp:V and wp:NOR are bedrock policies. We need published reliable sources upon which to base our statements. A primary source written by one of our editors completely fails to meet these criteria. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is http://nuclearplanet.com/1370.pdf OK? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is his own promotional site, so I'd assume OK per copyright (don't pretend to know the details there). Similar to university professor pages listing their works with links to copies hosted by the university. However, I view Hernden's website as pure fringe promotion. Vsmith (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is his own promotional site, so I'd assume OK per copyright" (Vsmith) Then I added the link. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I view Hernden's website as pure fringe promotion." (Vsmith) Of course it is. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we can assume copyright isn't held by the journal itself, something that is common practice. This should be established before the link is included, so I'm removing it again. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my assumption above was based on lack of copyright knowledge - so best to just give ref w/out the link to the fringe promotion page. Vsmith (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medrs

Kindly reply on the talk page of the medical uses of silver regarding medrs. Ryanspir (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Ryanspir[reply]

medrs, patent and antibiotic

kindly reply on medical uses of silver talk page Ryanspir (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir[reply]

User_talk:208.108.129.140

Hello, I just saw you blocked User:208.108.129.140 from editing - thanks. Would you mind dropping an appropriate template on their Talk page? This would indicate that this IP no longer needs to be reported to admins. Thanks. kashmiri 00:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just did - forgetful here :) Vsmith (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewed articles

This is how reliable peer-reviews are :-DDD

blog post

Earth Formation (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And ...? What is the point? Elsevier got hacked or whatever ... and stuff was retracted. Dishonesty abounds in this world. That in no way indicates that non-peer reviewed stuff is somehow "better" or even useful. Please take your self-promotion efforts elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Hi Vsmith,

I wanted to wish you a Merry Christmas. Your name pops up frequently on my watchlist and, although I haven't really interacted with you much, the few conversations we've had have been quite pleasant. Thanks for that, and for all your work at stopping vandals. I hope the coming year is a great one for you. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and enjoy the holidays ... s'posed to be a white one around here. Vsmith (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wikipedia have two articles for evolution?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 11:20, 23 December 2012‎

We have more than that, see Category:Evolution, Category:Evolutionary biology. Killer Chihuahua 14:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia should not have multiple articles for the same things. At least there should not be an article called just evolution. It should be evolution(description of how its different.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Content forking. If there is a parent article, it has the name alone, with no parenthetical detail. Killer Chihuahua 15:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Puppy! Vsmith (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)\[reply]

eh, I was handy and my watchlist is kindof inactive right now. Glad to be of any help. Killer Chihuahua 16:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merry x-mas

Let me join here. Not just stopping vandals, but stopping legitimate edits as well :). I wonder if you have ever taken a look at wp:rs and at wp:medrs, for they are absolutely identical. So when you were insisting on using rs over medrs that was really funny, and its even more special that it comes from admin :).Ryanspir (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir[reply]

Yeah, stompin' vandals and blatant promotional stuff as well is soo much fun. I'm glad you found someting to chuckle about. WP:MEDRS ≠ WP:RS and they are both guidelines supporting WP:V policy ... and neither support promotion of a commercial product (unless someone has messed w/ 'em lately). Hope you have a Happy Holiday Season. Vsmith (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merry x-mas 2

hahaha, you are a real stubborn admin. Perhaps could you have been affected during your stay in vietnam? Or have you been infected by t. Gondii parasite and it affects negatively your mental abilities? Please read about it in new your times or on wiki. Incidentally, it could be that cs is the only cure :). Anyway, to the business. Kindly read wp:rs which you are using often, read section 4.3 called medical claims. And compare it to wp:medrs which you are using rarely. :) i'll be excited to read your reply here. :)

@@ Line 231: / Line 231: @@
 Let me join here. Not just stopping vandals, but stopping legitimate edits as well :). I wonder if you have ever taken a look at wp:rs and at wp:medrs, for they are absolutely identical. So when you were insisting on using rs over medrs that was really funny, and its even more special that it comes from admin :).[[User:Ryanspir|Ryanspir]] ([[User talk:Ryanspir|talk]]) 15:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir
 :Yeah, stompin' vandals and blatant promotional stuff as well is soo much fun. I'm glad you found someting to chuckle about.  [[WP:MEDRS]] ≠ [[WP:RS]] and they are both guidelines supporting [[WP:V]] policy ... and neither support promotion of a commercial product (unless someone has messed w/ 'em lately). Hope you have a Happy Holiday Season. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith#top|talk]]) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
+== merry x-mas 2 ==
+hahaha, you are a real stubborn admin. Perhaps could you have been affected during your stay in vietnam? Or have you been infected by t. Gondii parasite and it affects negatively your mental abilities? Please read about it in new your times or on wiki. Incidentally, it could be that cs is the only cure :). Anyway, to the business. Kindly read wp:rs which you are using often, read section 4.3 called medical claims. And compare it to wp:medrs which you are using rarely. :) i'll be excited to read your reply here. :)