User talk:WLU/Archive 8

Canola can kill you

If you have a minute, can you take a look at the shenanigans going on in the canola and Brassica napus articles? I think it will amuse you at the very least. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My rage overfloweth. Thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

He has also been similarly active on erucic acid - Weetoddid (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If multiple editors believe his activities are inappropriate, it seems unlikely my attention is needed - but I do love a cursory review of cherry-picked sources with a goal of removing OR and other inappropriate edits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Juglans regia (Persian walnut) health stuff

Thank you. — Jay L09 (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, should have been done a while ago! Single studies are not a good source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey time to update

Hi stranger it's been awhile. Send me an update about how things are going in your neck of the woods and I'll do the same. Let's catch up. I hope our paths will cross again. I enjoy working with you. Talk soon and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll send you an e-mail in a bit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaced extremely basic information on nutrition, which is appropriate considering one of the major uses of walnuts is food

This looks like the beginning of an edit war: you completely ignored my reason for deletion of extraneous material, and basically said that because it is right, you will not accept the conclusion that information appropriate for the Juglans regia page should remain on the J. regia page. However, I am willing to accept your reasoning that basic information on nutrition belongs on the page about the twentyone or so species of walnuts. Therefore, rather than continue an edit war:

I have put the remainder of the nutrition information about J. regia on the Juglans page.

I am challenging you show that you accept the conclusion which you have put forward by including the "basic information on nutrition, which is appropriate considering one of the major uses of walnuts is food" for each and every one of the remaining twenty or so species of walnuts. Or remove the information emphasizing only one of these twentyone species. — Jay L09 (talk)

The main reason people know what a walnut is, is because they eat it. How many people are aware of what a walnut tree is, or that a product is dyed with walnut, or that walnut shells are used to sandblast, or any of the other uses besides food? For that reason, it makes sense to me to include the most basic nutritional information about walnuts on the walnut page. You inserted three, extremely lengthy tables into the article containing a lot of information on specific micronutrients (and note your species appeared to be wrong, the first table was for English walnuts, not Persian, as the USDA database doesn't seem to include Persian walnuts). I'm not sure why you would go from removing all nutritional information to including three massive tables of nutritional information; that seems curious and excessive to me for a parent article. If Walnut is the parent article for 20-odd species, doesn't it make sense to include one short table for the most common use of the most common nut?

If you are concerned over excessive emphasis on a single species, I have no problem including a small amount of nutritional information for the other remaining species we have this information for. You taking my point of including basic information and thinking this somehow justifies including a massive dump of information, seems curious and unnecessarily confrontational to me. Including one short table makes sense. Including three also makes sense, if they are also short and commonly used as food. Including three massive tables with excessive amounts of detail just seems kinda dickish. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooh! You have called me confrontational because I replied to your confrontational response to my suggestion (still not answered) that specific information on the fruit of the Persian walnut (a/k/a English walnut, a/k/a common walnut, a/k/a Juglans regia) belongs on the J. regia specific page, and not on the Juglans generic page. You have demonstrated your ignorance by accusing me of using the "wrong" species, to wit, Persian walnut (J. regia) instead of English walnut (J. regia). By suggesting that I removed all of the nutritional information from this article you have proven once again that you did not even bother to read the article about which you seem to have such strong feelings. Finally, because I have tried to go along with your approach, you have accused me of being "dickish." How can I possibly withstand such a withering assault of ignorance, namecalling, and projection? I will, once more, challenge you to include the nutritional information on the kernels of the other species in the genus (even those not native to the US or even Great Brittan) if you really believe that such detailed information on individual species is appropriate in an article on a genus. If, by further continuing the work of yours which I have already extended (for which you called me "dickish"), you demonstrate that you really believe what you have claimed, I will leave the multiple tables. I am, after all, a reasonable person. If you demonstrate that you still are unwilling to learn the difference between a genus and a species, I will remove the extraneous information, just like I would remove sexual references to another editor's friends. In the meantime, I will remind you that the nutritional information about J. regia, the link to which you deleted from the Juglans page, was and still is on the J. regia page. — Jay L09 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of simply making multiple copies of information from one Wikipedia article to other articles where it does not belong, why not do some real editing? I realize this is more difficult than "cut and paste," but it really is much more rewarding. — Jay L09 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you know what I'm going to do? Walk away without reading your response. I've got better things to do than argue about this. Your approach will lose you casual contributors. For instance, your question here? Not going to bother giving an opinion because if this page is any indication, it looks like it would be an aggravating discussion. It is difficult to write an encyclopedia all by yourself, but if you want to, go ahead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's that time again,

Hi, just popping in to say hello. I figured it was time to check in and let you know I was still around. Send me an update and with pictures please. I do watch you page and I know you went on vacation which means pictures to be seen. :) I enjoyed the pics for your last vacation so I'm ready to see the new ones. I'll be gone this afternoon and return sometime tomorrow. Seriously though, I hope I hear from you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

/* Capitalization of alpha tocopherol */ answer

I continued the conversation on my talk page. Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC).

Happy, Healthy New Year!

Hi, just popping in to say Happy, Healthy New Year to you and your family. I hope the New Year brings everything you didn't achieve in the last year and more. I'll be in touch via email to really chat but not feeling too well right now. Talk to you soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a great 2011, WLU. I'm so glad you're a part of this project. Anthony (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks lady and gent. I also hope good things for 2011, for all of us. May all our pages get referenced! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Kurkov_v

Howdy. I think this comment is a little harsh and slight POV comment when your asking the other user to be neutral. Not that I disagree, only that I think it was harsh.--v/r - TP 02:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But as I say in my comment, "neutral" doesn't mean "favourable". Hovind is demonstrably not a scientist, holds no relevant qualifications, actively misrepresents the scientific consensus and makes no effort to honestly engage with either issues or audience. A neutral page should reflect this, not the fact that god is apparently his boss. An account that can't learn this, shouldn't be here, and accounts editing creationism pages should learn quickly what is and is not acceptable and realistic here. This is not conservapedia to play to religious fundamentalists, we are a serious reference work that deals with topics from the mainstream (scientific) point of view. Why pussy-foot around with the idea that there is somewhere a potential biography of Hovind that gives his views any credibility? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and I don't disagree on any points. In all likilyhood, you deal with this sort of thing more than me. All I'm saying is that it's a little bit bitey. We dont know what editors can contribute if given the right chance and guidance.--v/r - TP 15:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you, but I've yet to see someone make pro-creationist edits like that come around to bother to understand our policies and guidelines sufficient to become a productive editor. Their willingness to edit war towards that point of view means they need to be corrected. Sharply. I went through the same process (ironically on the Terry Goodkind article, which you probably have an interest in). I was blocked, I read the policies and guidelines pointed out to me, and I reformed.

On top of that, any editor so grossly uninformed as to think any creationist or intelligent design proponent has even a micron of credibility or meaning in the real world is probably so unavoidably, willfully ignorant, they're never going to come around. I might be willing to give a bit more leeway if it were someone like Dembski or Meyer, who have at least a veneer of credible-appearing nonsense, but to think Hovind has anything to offer the world except perhaps as fertilizer means they are so ignorant their time is best spent actually learning something. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You've read Sword of Truth? Looking forward to The Omen Machine?--v/r - TP 16:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahahaha no. Are you aware of the ASOIAF messageboard with the Goodkind threads? I post under the same name there. No, I am not a fan, I'm actually banned from editing Terry Goodkind. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really hard to get banned from his forums. Although I like Goodkind's ideas, he's really arrogant to the point he cannot handle criticism. I just dont go on his message boards, they're clearly there to support his ego. I like the books, but I have nothing good to say about the author.--v/r - TP 16:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not the message boards, the wikipedia page That's actually what the "arbitration" section in my talk page archive is about. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ohh lol, I get it. Just skimming through, I can't say I disagree too much with you. He seems quite disturbed.--v/r - TP 17:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I didn't understand the last sentence of this. Is it me, or a typo? :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's a minor point and not really important. I'll just delete it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Megavitamin therapy

please respect my post and i will respect yours. you can put your section back up under megadose if you want along with mine and as i say below let the people decide. anything in research science can have conflicting views. that is a fact. if there are truly conflicting views and studies that seem to conflict again...let put the posts up and let people do the research and decide for themselves. its not our responsiblity to make decisions for people as to which side they may believe. i for one dont have an opinion either way on vitamin c but i know there are many clincial studies that support IV high dose vitmamin c therapy and that deserved to be in wikipedia. all that was under wikipedia when i published my content was curtailed towards the fact that there are no clinical studies to support high dose vitamin c. knowing that to not be true it is only fair to show both sides of a conflicting argument and let people do their own research and decide.

Cherry picked is the right word since I had a pool of over 1,000 clinical studies to pick from to note. These are all published studies and are all backed up with references. The public should be allowed to view both sides of the picture and make a decision for themselves. Almost all studies on Vitamin C megadose vitamin c are via oral administration and I wholeheartedly agree that there is no clinical evidence of high dose oral administration Vitamin C working the way the parenteral way does. The reference from Pub Med you submitted was from one scientist in Puerto Rico-----Please. Again your Stanford publication is an opinion as well. I have no problem with you offering these references but let the public decide. Let them see the references and decide for themselves. Again its not our responsibility to decide for people what to believe.Dr.RonaldLett (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The standard for the use of medical claims and sources for medical topics is WP:MEDRS. Please review that policy, particularly the part about respecting secondary sources. We can not cite or aggregate a series of primary sources (in this case, original research articles) to support a statement or opinion, particularly when that statement is contradicted by a reliable, secondary source (that is to say, a review article or meta-analysis). The fact that one can pick sources to cite is the reason why we rely on secondary, rather than primary sources. There is no mainstream support for vitamin C, intravenous or oral, as a treatment for cancer, and it should not be reported that there is. At best it is an investigative methodology, and there is certainly not enough data to claim it is effective. We do not "let people decide", we are not a news agency doing a poor job of reporting the scientific consensus by comparing a set of rational, well-designed studies reported by a scientist is in any way comparable to an a priori assumption that vitamins are good for you by a non-researcher. We represent the mainstream opinion as found in reliable secondary sources, not by editor advocacy. If your position has any merit, you must demonstrate it by citing reliable sources. Again, that is secondary sources. You do not get to synthesize a conclusion based on primary sources, we rely on secondary sources to do that for us. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

im not trying to be not nice to you by this statement but you are very wrong and i will prove it to you.

I only care if it is by citing reliable, secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

i dont have the time right this second, but i will gather the proper references for you and then you can see for yourself. you can have your "opinion" by your one scientist in puerto rico to base this on but i will give you substantial references to go on.

An editorial or letter to the editor would be an opinion piece, I have cited secondary sources published in peer-reviewed journals. That's not an opinion piece. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

there are in fact many clinical trials that show that high dose iv therapy of vitamin c has indeed had very positive effects on many different maladies. cancer is just one of them. i do grant you that some studies are performed in the animal world but as long as those facts are revealed and there is not an intention to mislead anyone these studies should be able to be referred to. these published studies are conducted by prestigous universities and clinics.

The prestige of the clinic or university is irrelevant, as it is the prestige of the publisher or journal, their reputation for fact checking, that matters. Animal studies are irrelevant for humans. If you have review articles on the effects of IV vitamin C on rats, then they can be included as information about IV vitamin C on rats. Their applicability to humans is essentially null for our purposes, they are suggestive, not indicative of potential for a cure. And that's if review articles exist. Primary studies are irrelevant as we are not a site for advocacy or to publish original research. I don't care if megavitamin therapy works. I care if it can be demonstrated that it works through the citation of reliable sources. This is a reflection of our policy on verifiability, which sets our standard at what can be verified in reliable sources, not what is true. I'm not going to review a bunch of primary sources to see if you are correct or not. I am going to zero in on the secondary sources and see if they demonstrate a coherent opinion, if subsequently-published sources agree or contradict that opinion, if there are other equally reliable sources that agree or disagree, and so on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

i realize its not a study and a referencable item, but take a look at the man from new zealand that had H1N1 and the "medical community" (which i am still a part of) was ready to pull his proverbial plug. high doses of vitamin c were given via IV and a "miracle" happened. i agree that this is not a referrable study of any kind....im just making a point.

Ahahaha. That's not evidence. That guy from New Zealand thing is an anecdote, which is at best only suggestive of an actual research protocol. It never demonstrates anything unless it can be repeated with extremely high success rates. If vitamin C actually cures the cold, it should be easy to demonstrate this in an experimental trial. The "guy from New Zealand" should not appear anywhere on wikipedia because a) it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal that I've ever seen and b) is merely a single case report rather than the secondary sources we require. So no, it's not proof, I'm not convinced, and your degrees do not impress me because you are citing this as evidence when it is at best hypothesis generating. The fact that you are presenting this as "proof" reduced your credibility substantially, though it does put you on par with many alternative medicine advocates who are unable to support their preferred form of nonsense with actual data, unwilling to actually test their beliefs with anything approaching a meaningful research protocol, and still charge money to people for giving them expensive urine. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

i practiced medicine for 35 years and have 2 degrees from Harvard Scool of Medicine having spent over 10 years at Harvard. i can say for absolute certainty that IV vitamin c helped hudreds if not thousands of my patients through the years. yes it isnt main stream medicine but nonetheless it works and there is clinical evidence to prove it (which i will get to later).

Your degrees are meaningless on wikipedia, all that matters are the sources you can find to substantiate your points, integrated into the encyclopedia in a manner compliant with policy. Please see the Essjay controversy. Anyone can claim to be anything online, which is why reference to sources is critical. Further, even if you were an "expert", experts can be wrong and biased, and must still demonstrate their claims, and the degree to which their claims are accepted, by reference to reliable sources. You may be a doctor, but that doesn't mean you aren't a quack. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

after you see the mountain of evidence that i will show you i hope you ask yourself the question of why hasnt high dose vitamin c made its inroads into traditional medicine. as a Dr. i can tell you why....because it is cheap and the billion dollar pharma industry cant make $ on it. its too readily available and they cant control it. as terrible as it sounds it all comes down to that.

Pharmanoia is not an argument. "Big Pharma is evil" is not proof. And if you want to talk about conflict of interest, what about doctors that charge for consultations to administer unproven treatments? You know what they call alternative medicine that has been demonstrated to effective through programs of research? Medicine. Vitamin C hasn't made inroads because it has never been demonstrated to work.

Also amusing - do you know who makes and sells vitamin C and other supplements? Big pharma.

I'm unimpressed that, as a doctor, the best you can offer me as evidence is a conspiracy theory. That's a load of bullshit that is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

its no different than patients getting one breast cut off that dont have cancer in it but the other breast does. they call this Precautionary Masstectomy. if someone had a severe infection that has turned to necrosis on one limb it would not seem logical to cut the sister limb off just because of the other limbs infection. of course not. to a normal person that makes sense. but that is exactly what is happening in the medical community via masstectomies. its a crime to the patients in reality. 50 years from now the medical community will look back on this era and shake their heads and wonder how they could have practiced dinosaur age medicine.

Actually, there's a tremendous difference between cancer, which can metastasize and then grow over years particularly in tissues similar to those it originated in, and an infection, which systemically spreads from one body part to another very quickly. You are seriously trying to impress me with your credentials by pretending cancer is the same thing as necrosis? Fail.

If you're right, then in 50 years wikipedia will report this but right now wikipedia will not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

i do not wish to pick arguments. i am a very respected physician for many years that just retired recently and would like to do some good for people. part of my doing good is to try to put factual information the world can benefit from in front of people. wikipedia is a good way to do that. i do not want to rely on opinion for anything either as i agree that is not what wikipedia should be about. i have much respect for wikipedia. i would ask you to do some very insightful research yourself on this subject and see that what i am saying is true. there is a book that is published called Curing the Incurable by Dr. Thomas Levy that lists over 1,200 studies of benefits of high dose IV vitamin c therapy. these references are in many reputable universities and other clincial settings that are very well respected.

I frankly don't care about your arguments, I care about sources. You're wasting my time. Stop trying to convince me and spend some time gathering sources. Again, review articles, not primary sources. Wikipedia can be a great way to spread unproven quackery if editors do not insist on high-quality sources that represent the mainstream opinion. If you want to do some good for people, how about you advocate for proven treatments like vaccination rather than vitamins. Or better yet, take a course on research methodologies and actually study these treatments. Don't you think advocating them before there is an adequate evidence base is unethical? I do.

You shouldn't respect wikipedia by the way. It's a great way to get quick information but is not itself a reliable source and is easily hijacked by people who think they have something really important to say but just keep getting rejected by the mainstream. That's not what we are for. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

im hopeful that a young person as yourself (im just guessing at that but im sure you are younger than me) and myself can work through this together and have a good relationship in the future. i look forward to hearing back from you. Dr.RonaldLett (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That is extremely unlikely unless you develop an understanding of the community that is in line with its policies and guidelines. So start reading, if you can't justify your edits to the P&G, you are wasting many, many people's time. I would suggest you give WP:MEDRS a serious, thorough read before posting anything else on this page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:You should not spread your fetish across Wikipedia

I just came across this essay which you apparently wrote three years ago. Just wanted to say, nice work! It's very funny, one of the best user essays I've read, and is still very much relevant today. There's a bit too much of that stuff around Wikipedia... not that sexual fetishes shouldn't be included, but they tend to creep into articles where they don't belong. Robofish (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like it. You may also enjoy a read of my advice to new users and my five stages of wikipedia. The last is mostly just funny. IMHO.

That essay was written regarding one user who really, really liked barefoot women. I've got a link somewhere. Like, 90 sockpuppets. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A little late to comment but a good excuse to do so, was in the hospital again.  :( WLU does write excellent essays and usually they are so fun to read that you have no problems reading to the end of them. I know I've enjoyed them. Hi WLU, long time, hope you are well. I mean this because here it's not been to healthy but what's new with that. :) Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I like to think I'm funny. I'm doing fine (but busy). Drop me an e-mail if you want, though I may take a bit to reply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your correct deletion of my edit

You correctly deleted my edit disambiguating "acupuncture" as NRS. I agree with hardline application of NRS deletions, especially in med articles. But I wanted to let you know that I was not trying to "apply a differnt standard" to my own insertions, than I applied to make deletions of contirbs by other editors using NRS. My intent was to temporarily bend the RS rules because of constantly shifting definitions in the article body, which makes a newcomer unable to make sense of the article without great difficulty (it did when I came to the article). I also thought it might kill some of the heated argumentation using these ambiguities at the talk page. I thought a temporary disambiguation, entirely and only based on inline RS cited article body material temporarily outweighed NRS. I will track down the many line items in the article body that my fourth lede paragraph summed up, check the Rs upon which each is based, and add inline citations to my lede paragraph article summary on this. Cheers. PPdd (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, as you like. I have a suggestion for you that might save you time and grief - it may be better for you to set up a user subpage rather than working on "drafts" (particularly with controversial sections like that) in mainspace. Though I have no doubt you are working towards a final, sourced, balanced NPOV version, by working on information like that in mainspace it looks like you are pushing towards a POV version that sets a double-standard. On a subpage you can work at your own pace, don't need to justify your edits, and generally have a lot more freedome to annotate, source, edit and criticize at your leisure. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Check. Subpages are the way to go to avoid a "double standard" appearance. And thanks. (I forgot to "watch" your page so this reply is coming after replying to your edit on my talk page.) Also, I have been trying to WP:write for the enemy as much as I can, and I found many shifting definitions I might have missed by so trying. (and thanks for your other suggestions; they have made me a much better NPOV editor.) PPdd (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to correct the sloppy research or thinking of acupuncturists or researchers, just report what they think as best we can. Since acupuncture is not a systematic, evidnece-based discipline, you may never find single definitions or explicitly laid out arguments - so just summarize what you can find in the best sources available. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it. (And on adding to Traditional Chinese medicine, too. I just added RS content on beliefs, and MEDRS lethality, re snake oil for arthritis, human dried placenta for asthma, and scientific findings on the lethality of ass-hide glue pellets.) PPdd (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks

Hello WLU,

Thanks for saying hi. As you can tell this is my first foray into wikipedia. Finding a more experienced editor to guide me with edits would be great, I will follow up on your suggestions. There are a lot of problems with the Acupuncture entry page, although some of it is great. I was disturbed by the discussion of "pseudo-science" on the talk page.

I am L.Ac, Dipl.Ac, with an MS in Acupuncture. MS=master of science. There are accredited schools with state and national boards and doctoral research programs. I would expect discussions to have a basic level of courtesy and accuracy, which these seem not to have.

How can I appeal the tone of some of these statements? Having editors with this type of attitude contribute to a wiki entry seems to be a disservice to wikipedia and their readers. Soll22 (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)soll22

I don't understand how anyone can have a masters of science in a topic that is prescientific but whatever. The fact that there is no scientific evidence for the "theory" of acupuncture is the main reason why it is considered pseudoscience - there's no argument that sticking needles into people has an effect; it may even have an effect beyond the placebo. If you carefully read the discussion on the talk page and in the archives, you will note that the "pseudoscientific" aspect is the TCM beliefs. Again, it's a prescientific set of beliefs that have never been validated through a coherent, convergent set of scientific findings. Despite having instruments that can detect the action of a single atom - or even a single photon, no qi has ever been detected. No anatomical or clinical evidence for acupuncture points or meridians. Tongue diagnosis has not been validated. Only one pulse has ever been found and it is generated by the heart. These are the beliefs that are unjustified by well-designed scientific studies - yet practitioners still describe their practice in terms of qi, acupuncture points, manipulating energy and the like. Have you ever heard of Tooth fairy science? Because it has been argued that accreditation on a topic like this is an example of, so to speak, tooth fairy accreditation. These are the kinds of questions and arguments you will see on the talk page, and will have to deal with courteously and substantively on the talk page. Wikipedia's pages are written from a neutral point of view - note that this does not mean conciliatory, positive, or from the perspective of a believer. It means to the best of the ability of all editors, that it is represented in the manner found in reliable sources. For any claim that acupuncture is effective in the treatment of medical conditions or symptoms, you would need medically-reliable sources - generally secondary sources (review articles) or high-quality medical publishers. For claims of what practitioners believe, a publisher of scholarly books or again a review article would be acceptable.

So you can't appeal to anybody - you have to demonstrate that there are problems with the page through the citation of reliable sources. Editors are only restricted from editing through blocks and bans if they fail to adhere to our policies and guidelines. Opinions are insufficient, as are arguments - sources are required. If you have a problem with the current page, you need to start mustering sources to substantiate your points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a real problem if you personally are using definitions such a "pre-scientific but whatever" in a vague and general way. What do you define as prescientific? Is there a generally accepted, mainstream use of the concept of pre-scientific? No. You pass a marginal personal comment and opinion as a mainstream view. I have noticed on the talk page, that the editors use concepts like "pseudo-science" as if this more than a marginal debate in restricted circles of scientists and non-scientists. Certainly, none of the editors demonstrate any analytic or scientific skill, let alone grammatical or spelling ability. The proof is in the first paragraphs of the wiki entry which contains nothing but marginal and generally unsubstantiated statements that conflict with later statements in the body of the wiki entry. Is this a scientific approach to what acupuncture is? Like I said, psychological effects are not even in the scope of practice of acupuncture, yet the statement in the first paragraphs of the article states: Acupuncture's efficacy for other than psychological effects is denied by the science based medicine community. This implies that acupuncture can be used condoned for use for psychological treatment by the science based medicine community. I have news for you. Acupuncturists are prohibited from treating most serious psychological ailments. Look it up, this is not a entry in the article so do your own research. Put it back up and it will be deleted again and again.

Another question for you is this: there are many domains which are not "hard science" such as psychology, psychiatry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, social work, etc. Acupuncture studies over all, not just the ones you like to selectively mention, have show efficacy at least to the extent of these previously mentioned professions. Are you as deeply involved in critiquing these other fields as you are acupuncture?Soll22 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Science is an empirical approach to reasoning and discovery that uses replication, extension, objective measurement and independent confirmation to arrive at an answer that is provisionally true upon further testing. It employs specific reasoning and critical tools in order to offset the known cognitive biases of the human mind such as confirmation bias, ad hoc explanations, special pleading and the like. It was developed in Western Europe and has since spread to everywhere on the planet as the most successful way of building a building, manufacturing a product, treating a disease and discovering more about the world. Anything that is prescientific is any discovery process and findings that existed before the rules, tools and methods of science came into existence. Though humans often came up with realistic solutions to many problems, the explanations for these solutions were often spurious and based on nonsense - for instance, qi, meridians, acupuncture points, homeopathy, the Galenic humours, bleeding for health and profit, miasmas, and certainly more. Science mines previous data and beliefs, tests them for empirical evidence and discards what can not be justified. Acupuncture is one such technique that is currently being investigated and is particularly problematic because there is historical evidence that much of acupuncture was essentially made up after the Chinese revolution. It is further problematic because there are so many different systems and acupuncture points throughout the world - science converges on correct solutions that are universally applicable, it does not diverge upon reaching a new culture. Pseudoscience is not used on the main page because there is not yet consensus in the mainstream medical and scientific community that acupuncture is pseudoscience, and that is why I will not support the use of the category on the page until this has occurred. The TCM aspects of acupuncture do meet, in my opinion, the criteria for a pseudoscience - untested assertions that persist in the face of disconfirming evidence - but that is my opinion and not the scientific consensus. Acupuncture itself does meet some of the criteria, particularly the belief that it can treat anything but pain and nausea in the short term. However, it does seem to be genuinely useful in the acute relief of pain and nausea - possibly because it is a counter-irritant, possibly because of placebo, but not because it is manipulating a magical form of energy that can't be detected by science.

The lead is problematic and once PPdd has settled down and stopped editing the page so much, I will take a look at it. I believe that statement about psychological effects is aimed at acupuncture being useful for pain and nausea only, but that wording is far from ideal.

The fact that other domains and other interventions may lack hard scientific evidence does not validate acupuncture. That is a false dilemma. Acupuncture stands and falls on its own merit, not on whether it is less or better justified than other treatments. That is a popular fallacy appealed to by CAM practitioners who wish to justify their own evidence-lacking practices by criticizing their "opponents" in mainstream medicine. And that assumes that your argument is itself actually correct and there are many mainstream interventions that lack an evidence base.

I am happy to provide basic advice and answer questions. I will give you my honest opinion of sources and summaries of sources on the page and will try to be scrupulously fair in my evaluation of them, citing the appropriate policies and guidelines to substantiate my opinion and pointing to dispute resolution mechanisms that exist on wikipedia to settle disagreements. But personally I find acupuncture to be poorly-supported by science, can be explained by the placebo effect, and to have no evidence to support its use for anything but pain and nausea. On the main page I will support my assertions through reference to reliable sources - as I have for these points already. However, I am uninterested in debating the effectiveness of acupuncture on my talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that you are interested in science but don't acknowledge the fact that the science that you speak of only evolved in the last hundred years. Western medicine, surgery, the buildings you speak of, most of western civilization was created in the last 3000 years, when only the last hundred were under the auspices of science with the meaning you suggest, science that does not leave space for the unexplained. From the vehemence of your tone, you suggest that the only things of value in our lives are those that derive from the last 100 years of American and Western European civilization and everything else that contributed to life moving forward before this last hundred years was useless. I will, hopefully, have time to substatiante my critiques of your desire to place acupuncture within the confines of clinical trials of western medicine, which actually apply almost exclusively to pharmaceutical research, with drugs or substances, either internal or topical, which are one of the only ways in which western medicine can fit itself into it's self created box of clinical trials. The other main modality of western medicine is surgery, obviously discounting the implants and prosthetic joints which contain synthetic substances which can be tested in the same way as pharmaceuticals. Surgery, as you are aware, does not have to comply with the same type of trials as pharmaceuticals. Acupuncture is neither pharmaceutically based, nor surgery based, which means that it's own paradigm for testing needs to be developed, and like I said on the entry talk page, it is only in the last 10 years that there has been enough interest in acupuncture in the west, with acupuncture Institutes and Doctoral programs being established, and it's only now that one can really begin trying to see where it fits in in the world of therapeutic modalities. Given the fact that clinical trials and "scientific" proof of allopathic medicine have been taking place for the last hundred years, and that clinical trials themselves can span 10 years or more, not counting statistical analysis time, I would say that maybe 40 years from now will you begin to see a balanced study that will satisfy your personal standards of the possibilities of acupuncture.

peace out.Soll22 (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC) oh yeah, I would really recommend you get the documentary on Nikola Tesla. Fascinating, absolutely fascinatingSoll22 (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

May I? Soll22, WLU, with his firm grasp of Wikipedia policy and knowledge of the scientific status of acupuncture, is an asset to the article. He defends it, not only from boosters, who would have it saying more than rigorous evidence can support, but also from those who would turn it into a hatchet job. The article will never say what believers in acupuncture would like it to, but neither will it be a mouthpiece for acupuncture's mindless haters, while he is here. Presently, the article has taken a swing towards the latter, but that won't last. (Please forgive the impertinence, WLU's talk page is on my watchlist). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony, I appreciate the comment (and squee! I've got pagewatchers! I'M IN THE BIG LEAGUES NOW BABY!!!!!!). Your description is glowing, I wish I was actually as good an editor as you portrayed me :)

Soll22, there was much value in what was created before science. I have visited many of the great museums of Europe and North America, and find the chiaroscuro of Caravaggio to be startling awe-inspiring. The Pyramids of Egypt are masterpieces of engineering, and the King's Chamber has the most amazing echo when you make any noise. Caesar Augustus' sleeping quarters are humbling in their humbleness, particularly when juxtaposed with the Ara Pacis. None of which helped lengthen lives, all of which contributed to the human experience. Science is unique among all other approaches to the world in using empirical data to resolve disputes, and attacking all the cognitive biases of humans head-on with an intense focus on methodology. It didn't exist previously - medicine may have rational components, but for every Egyptian block of text advocating for raw meat or honey to be applied to wounds, there are three more calling for prayer, spells and alligator dung taken intravaginally. Acupuncutre, if it even existed in the form we consider it to be and wasn't simply bloodletting, shared space in Chinese medicine with the consumption of gold and mercury to achieve immortality, and the conservation of sperm and coupling with young sexual partners to prevent ageing. Science may only have existed in the past 100 years (more like 300-400 years but whatever), however in that mere century it has allowed more advances in medicine, engineering, travel, communication, manufacturing and even the arts than in the thousand centuries that preceded it. You misunderstand science if you say it doesn't leave spaces for the unexplained. Science is nothing more than holes in our understanding, and the activities that attempt to fill them. It is alternative medicine that claims we have perfect knowledge and therefore should stop looking (in particular, that we should stop looking at whatever flavour of CAM that the practitioner in question happens to make their living off of). Consider it this way - if acupuncture really works, if there is a genuine effect from pushing needles into specific points, shouldn't it be easy to demonstrate this? You can tell pretty quickly if most medical interventions work - why is it so hard with acupuncture? Or homeopathy? Or herbal medicine? Or reiki? Or therapeutic touch? Why do results disappear when control groups, placebos, randomization, blinding and objective measures are used? I would argue that it is not hard - that instead practitioners want their intervention to work and will do their damndest to ignore the data and otherwise rationalize their way into justifying their pre-existing beliefs. Science converges. The more experiments that are done on a real phenomenon, the more the data becomes self-reinforcing. This doesn't happen with most acupuncture, reiki, homeopathy and so forth. The science is pathological, the results marginal, unreplicable and rely on the belief of the tester rather than the methodology. Science is beautiful in its ability to unite all humans in pursuit of a single truth. That doesn't make everything before science useless - art, architecture, myth, history, they can all be amazing, but they rarely reveal objective truths, and even if they do it is often by accident rather than design. I love and am moved by art, history, archaeology and even by a sincere believer in a religion (and I'm an atheist), but when I am sick I will turn to science and when I want a house, or a car, or a gas stove (I'm appliance shopping this week), or an efficient refrigerator, I turn to science (in the latter cases I actually turn to Consumer Reports, who use empirical methods).

Addressing specific claims - are you aware of the research examining the benefits of exercise? Of proper diet and nutrition? Sanitation? Vaccination? Rehabilitation from injuries? Medicine is far from merely drugs and surgery, but those heroic and risky interventions are often what is required when the body won't heal itself. But any doctor who doesn't recommend diet and exercise to an overweight patient will be judged by their peers as guilty of malpractice. To claim that medical research is merely pharmaceuticals and surgery is little more than toeing the CAM party line since CAM can only define itself in opposition to actual medicine - much like creationism defines itself primarily as 'not evolution'. Surgery doesn't have to comply with the same trials as pharmaceuticals, but it should, and it has, and those modalities found to be useless or harmful were abandoned. Meanwhile, do acupuncturists still recommend their intervention for anything but pain and nausea? Acupuncture does not need its own "special" science, it needs exactly the same approach - careful controls to ensure patients are not merely getting better naturally. Randomization so researchers can't consciously or unconsciously put the healthier patients in "their" arm of the trial. Blinding so interpretation isn't biased by what the researcher wants to believe. Adequate placebos so patients don't get better because of nonspecific effects - which even doctors in "allopathic" medicine know about and take advantage of. Statistical testing so you have an objective measure of whether one group is truly better than another. And publication in a peer reviewed journal so minimum standards of methodology can be evaluated, and so any flaws in the testing can be pointed out and refined for the next clinical trial. Basic science. Pharmaceuticals have to go through all these processes and more - why not acupuncture? Scientists don't ask for a different standard when it's a new medicine, or even testing an old wive's tale for efficacy. If acupuncture is truly effective, what does it have to fear from a well-designed test? Rather than trying to justify acupuncture by criticizing medicine, why not simply test it to make sure it works? Methodology transcends intervention types, and asking for special treatment is both illogical and unfair. And, I would venture, based on fear that the intervention will fail the test.

Acupuncture has been known in the West since the 17th century, has been known and used in the West by non-Asians since the 70s, and has been tested using adequate placebos only in the last decade. Since actual adequate placebos have been designed, the dramatic claims of acupuncture have consistently failed empirical testing. In that 10 years, we have learned more about acupuncture than in the past 2,000. And it's real knowledge, knowledge that can be replicated irrespective the context - so long as an adequate methodology is applied. If acupuncture actually works, independent of the placebo effect, then it will indeed be demonstrated to work. But we need placebo testing to see if it is just placebo effect. And if it does "work" then we can determine what works - and why. Perhaps we will learn something new about the body, perhaps we can learn to do it safer, faster, better, or perhaps we will abandon it. Only proper testing will let us know. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your wisdom of 45K edits needed

I had the initial advantage of coming to the acupuncture article with little knowledge. I could not make heads or tails of it, because all of the definitions kept shifting around without notice, even in the sources, so I made a big list of each usage, to disambiguate things so the article could be read. I found your point about sticking this at the top not being in the style of an encyclopedia to be correct. I tried to break up the "disambiguation section" into small pieces to be inserted as the ambiguous terms came up. Unfortunately, the ambiguities came up all at once at the outset of the science section, so there is now an unwieldy disambiguation section at the top of that section, again not characteristic or how an encyclopedia should be structured. I can't figure out how to correct this, without leaving confusing ambiguities that leave the sections unreadable (and MOS internally inconsistent). You have literally 10 times the editing experience as I have. Can you help with this problem, or suggest a way to deal with it. I'm stuck. PPdd (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC) PS - am I using TB correctly? PPdd (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You use talkback to let me know that there is a message for me on your talk page. There's no point using the template to accompany a message on my talk page because I will get notification of any and all talk page postings on my talk page through that orange box at the top. Also, you would use {{talkback|PPdd}} becuase you're alerting me of a message on your talk page. The talkback template is used to keep conversations contained to a single page, but still let people know there's a reply (in case they don't have the user's talk page on their watchlist or they don't check their watchlist frequently. If you reply to the comment I just left you on your talk page, on your talk page, then you would drop me a talkback to let me know about it.

Yes, you're 100% right about the definitions shifting - but you can't make the point. You have to let the source make the point for you. Having such a source that explicitly makes the point (i.e. the source says "there are many definitions of acupuncture and they are often ambiguous and implicit rather than explicit") would be nigh-invaluable. I would put it near the top of the research section. You saying "research on acupuncture uses many definitions and rarely clarifies exactly what is being studied"<ref>e.g. Source, source, source, source.</ref> is a synthesis and not appropriate. Sources should be used as sources, not as examples of something being done right, or wrong. But I'm not even sure that's your question.

My recommendation is to take that section right out. Put it on the talk page, or better yet your subpage. Think about it for a while, look at the references one by one, see what they really say (not what you as a skeptic read into them) and then draft a section - and ask for comments. This is a community effort, you don't have to write the page by yourself and you probably shouldn't. And there's no rush. It can be frustrating to not be able to make what are transparently obvious points but we have to live with it. For instance, The Matrix violates the third law of thermodynamics. Maybe the first. They confuse me. Irrespective, you can't keep feeding dead people to living people and use them as batteries because of energy loss due to heat. Humans are pre-fossil fossil fuels, they're a nonrenewable resource without the input of sunlight. Huge flaw in the backstory described by Morpheus. I've been glaring at that page for years and once tried putting it in. It was reverted - and justifiably - and I haven't tried since. Didn't even bring it up on the talk page, that's not how wikipedia works. Apparently it was the second law, whatever.

And above all, don't feel bad. You're not grappling with easy or obvious issues. You're taking criticism, a lot of it, and being civil and rational in your replies. You're reading policies, seeking sources, engaging on the talk page and so forth. Except for your blatant POV-pushing you're a model wikipedian! And let's face it, nearly every editor comes to wikipedia as a POV-pusher. I did. Check out my very first set of edits to that awful hack Terry Goodkind's page. Check out my arbitration hearing in my talk page archives. I was a giant ass hat, but over time and with experience I came the model policy-pushing editor you see before you. Possibly I push policy a bit too much. Sometimes, perhaps, I cram it down people's throats and pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that they will choke to death. But with constant referral to policies and other guidance, everyone operates by the same set of pretty fair rules and they actually work pretty damned well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I never even heard of a third law of thermodynamics. I lost track of physics early in my career. I'm a mathematician, and unlike a physicist, a mathematician is not connected to reality. Now I'm off to add a little plain English to 3rd law. PPdd (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

That is how you use talkback. My reply is here, I leave you a talkback notice so you know to look. The only time it's practical to have a conversation on wikipedia on two different talk pages is if you are both online at the same time. Otherwise you leave a note on someone's page and check it every so often to see if they've replied. Talkback lets you have whole conversations on a single page, which makes it easy to follow. Not to mention other people can contribute to the conversation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. PPdd (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I made a practice of turning on the "watch all pages you edit" button which means you monitor any user talk page you post on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't find that button. PPdd (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

AIDS denialism talkpage

Just to let you know: I plan to remove clear talk page violations from the AIDS denialism page. After being away from Wikipedia since August, I'm amazed that certain denialist agenda editors continue to waste so much of your (and everyone's) valuable time with fruitless debate. Please object and discuss if you disagree with my position, but I strongly oppose the abuse of Wikipedia as a publicity tool for extreme fringe ideas and feel that a hard line on violations is warranted. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I closed the section once, I have no problem with it being closed again. The consensus is quite clear, no-one is supporting the AIDS deniers arguments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

AIDS denialism talkpage 2

Hello friends. Let me start by saying that it is a pleasure to talk with both of you. But, as this is WLU page, I'll direct to him our nice coffee and cigarettes chat.

First of all, I'm not an AIDS denialist or someone from Rethinking AIDS or places like that. In my user page you can find a glimpse of who am I, if you want to believe it.

This AIDS denialism subject is a bit of controversial. Many stupid guys claim themselves as Denialists, while they cannot even understand an abstract of a scientifc work, and they publish every kind of nonsensed paper. But there are many respectable and important scientists which have important dissident points of view and researches about this matter. I gave you many of this works (some of them in pdf.) as I consider them scientifical and good enough to be taken in count.

For instance, Jean Luc Montagnier's position. Since the beginning he was claiming the multifactorial aspects of HIV infection (with many information available in the web about this. But neither here or in the official AIDS page we can find that.

But I think what we should discuss is: which sources are reliable and which are not? Can you explain me, as you are a far more experienced editor than me, how should I define that...

I think we can collaborate each other making this a better article (what doesn't means necesarily a "pro-denialist" article). Just one better, for the sake of Wiki. And about Kalichman: I've read his book in september of last year, it is quite interesting from a sociological point of view.

And, if you allow me, can I ask you this? Please, you should all stop threatening with "erasures" and stuff, I think is not the best way. We can always have a nice neutral chat. Milikguay (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you are or are not an AIDS denialist, your actions will have the same result even if your intentions are good. There is no debate - HIV causes AIDS, this is the mainstream opinion. Wikipedia is not the place to debate this (there is no debate). I'm not interested in reading unreliable sources supporting fringe points of view - and this includes the opinions of individuals who don't work with AIDS publishing in unreliable sources. Despite Montagnier being the discoverer of AIDS, his opinion does not determine the mainstream position on AIDS - and the fact that 12 years ago he published a book doesn't mean the mainstream position suddenly changed. Not to mention, have you seen what he's advocating these days? Homeopathy. Not to mention - not very active with the AIDS research these days. Science isn't a religion, no one cares what the founder said unless it's supported by current data. The fact that he thought AIDS had more to do with cofactors than HIV is meaningless since HIV has found to be causative, while cofactors only accelerate the disease's progress. AIDS denialism is not controversial, it is pseudoscience, and the "controversy" is manufactured by denialists trying to win public relations points. The fact that you are attempting to portray the AIDS denialist point of view as if it has merit means you either haven't read up on the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, didn't understand it, or have and believe it is wrong. AIDS denialism isn't a scientific debate. The science is settled. It's a sociological issue - why and how do people come to believe irrational things, like HIV not causing AIDS.

If Montagnier has a genuine point to be made about AIDS research, that should go on AIDS, not AIDS denialism. On the other hand, if his point exists explicitly exists to promote the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, then his opinion should only appear here to be discredited. That is the neutral approach. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Est not quid volumus videre, verum quid videndum est...

When you say "there IS NO debate", what do you mean with that? Perhaps you are talking about USA, because in Europe, specially in Germany, France, Italy and Russia, i'm quite awared that every day the debate is larger and bigger. Then you are saying "HIV causes AIDS, this is the mainstream opinion", well, I think we are agree with that. But, then, why we don't just erase the AIDS Denialism page, since its content is worthless and useless? Obviously, mainstream believes that HIV causes AIDS, so we do no harm nor damage by improving the Denialism article (if we do not need to erase it).

WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, WP:N, WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read that one million times. So, if this guidelines and all Wiki guidelines should be taken seriously, we should start erasing right now half Wikipedia... Milikguay (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When you say "I'm not interested in reading unreliable, fringe, pseudoscientific sources..."¿does that make you the final opinion for that? ¿Is your criteria grander or better than other editors criteria on this subject? I'm a Chemical Engineer, MSc. in Industrial Thermodynamics Process, PhD. in Biotechnology for Chemical Engineering (you are free to believe it or not, as I would like to keep my privacy). I've been in the world of science since I entered the University and I've been reading and regarding scientific papers for almost 25 years, so when you say to me, or to other editor, that my sources are fringe pseudoscience, you are insulting my intelligence and my criteria as well as other editors's. So why, instead of bunching those guidelines, which all over Wiki are free interpreted, as willed by some guys neglecting other editors's important contributions, don't we achieve an agreement on which sources can be considered "reliable", which scientific opinions or criteria should be considered "reliable" and which others cannot. It would be quite better, for the sake of us all.

WP:OR, and I'll note that you're alleged qualificatios do not include doctor or AIDS researcher. Incidentally, if you wouldn't advice from a cancer researcher regarding chemical thermodynamics in chemical engineering, you might understand why it's a bad idea to take advice from Peter Duesberg about AIDS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me in which university of the world you should study or in which college of the planet should you enter for becoming an "HIV Expert"?? Where is that cathedra?? I've never heard of it... By your logic, I (and everybody) should have an "PhD. in HIV" for being capable of understanding AIDS related scientific papers?? Hilarious!! So, being PhD. in Biotechnology or PhD. in Cell Biology or Emeritus Professor of Pathology and Virology is not enough (as many AIDS denialists are)... Really Hilarious!! And as you've mentioned Duesberg, well. I've never met him personally, but I've heard about his works and books. His cell biology and virology investigations are groundbreaking and in Europe, at least, his opinions are very respected. So, if he thinks that "HIV is harmless" (that's what he thinks, is it?) ¿why should his opinion be less relevant than Fauci's or Ho's opinions? Once again, please enlight me here, as I can't find a good answer... Milikguay (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this was hilarious, my friend (I think we are friends, don't we, or we can be friends...): "Not to mention, have you seen what he's (Montagnier) advocating these days? Homeopathy." Well, fine. We all have our issues, don't we?? Are we going to discredit him because he likes Homeopathy (even if that discipline is pseudoscience)? No! Let me put you a syllogism:

I am uninterested in being your friend. WP:SOAP, WP:FORUM. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine for me, my scientific world won't melt because of it. Milikguay (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a pseudoscientific discipline...

Montagnier likes or practice homeopathy...

Montagnier likes or practice pseudoscience.

Is that a logical conclusion?? Are we going to judge him for that?? I myself cannot. It is not logic to think that! Same thing, for instance, happened with brilliant german composer Richard Wagner. Adolf Hitler loved Wagner's music and used it as propaganda. Therefore, several years (specially in USA and Israel) Wagner's music was considered (by an absolute nonsense) as "pro-nazi music", regardless that the composer was not a Nazi (he died in the XIX century) and his works are, simply, masterpieces, like it or not, and his influence goes beyond music. That's just an example of how prejudices can affect dramatically our perceptions. As I know there are many idiotic dissident pages and opinions, also there are many dissident's important works with a great scientific basis, ergo, not pseudoscience, as most guys claim.

There may be many researchers who do great work, but I've yet to see an AIDS researcher or clinician who is also an AIDS denialist. Being an AIDS denialist is about denying evidence in a field where you have no expertise. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are proposing a paradox. There is no AIDS researcher that will be denialist because he is indeed an AIDS resarcher!! Do you know someone who investigates in something and says "I'm looking for this virus that does not exists"?? Please, man!! There is no "HIV Expertise Field". There are Chemists and Biochemists, Biotechnologists, Biologists, Medic Doctors, Virologists, Pathologists or, in few words, biosciences experts. If you can show me someone who is an "HIVist" or an "AIDSist" from Oxford or La Sorbonne the MIT or any university, I'll further emit no word about this again. Milikguay (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, no AIDS researchers are AIDS denialists because they have no doubts that HIV causes AIDS. The people who deny AIDS do not work with it, but they often claim to have cures. All those fields do indeed do work on AIDS. You may even find people who work in those fields who deny AIDS. But those same people will not have "AIDS researcher" as their professional identity. It's not up to me to defend the uncontroversial assertion that HIV causes AIDS. It's up to you to show me that there is debate in the peer reviewed literature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Montagnier does have a genuine and important point of view, like many scientists, about AIDS. Why "mainstream" do not accept it? I can't figure out, believe me. Because scientifically, there is nothing wrong with Montagnier's or other scientifics views... Perhaps there is another answer, but beyond science... Maybe you can enlight me here. Frankly, I can't figure it out...

Milikguay (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a recent, peer-reviewed publication where Montagnier claims that HIV does not cause AIDS so it can be integrated into the appropriate page. Please stop posting notes on my talk page, I am uninterested in debating this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific papers do not have a "deadline time of worthness". Cholera is caused by the vibrio cholerae and this is known since the XIX century. Do you need a peer reviewed XXI century work for accepting this? But even so, I gave you several links, not just from Montagnier, but from other highly qualified experts, but you and other editors just keep on neglecting that, shielding yourself in a free will interpreted guidelines, even if my and other guys information does not violate specifically any of your points and even if I made clear several times that I'M NOT an AIDS denialist. Milikguay (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No-one is asserting that cholera is not caused by v. cholerae, but you are attempting to say that Montagnier is an AIDS denialist. The idea that cholera is an infectious disease with a bacterial cuase is uncontroversial. The idea that HIV does not cause AIDS is. So much so that suggesting it runs afoul of our policy on the biographies of living persons. The balance of proof is placed on the person asserting the fringe position is not a fringe position. You have presented sources published in fringe journals. Medical Hypotheses and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons are your "top tier" sources so to speak. Neither is acceptable for reasons found in their wikipedia pages. Do you have anything from AIDS and behavior, or the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome that suggests HIV does not cause AIDS? There is a reason the only sources discussing AIDS as if it were anything but a syndrome caused by a specific viral infection are non-specialist, non-medical, non-acceptable sources. The idea that HIV does not cause AIDS is considered batshit insane. Still think the editors opposing your suggestions are a selective group of meanies? Bring up your idea at WP:ANI, or WT:MED or WP:FTN. See what kind of reaction you get. You claim you are not an AIDS denialists, but your edits only suggest you are denying being a denialist. HIV causes AIDS. Worldwide medical consensus of the relevant experts. As far as wikipedia's concerned, case closed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Geographic bias?

Hallo, I've just looked at your comment here and was intrigued by your idea that "now it's filling in the gaps for small towns in North America, states and provinces elsewhere, and new items appearing in pop culture or the news." Did you really mean that small towns elsewhere don't have the same right to a place in Wikipedia as small towns in America, or was it supposed to be a comment on the demographic of Wikipedia editors (who seem to be an increasingly international bunch, rather than biased to small town USA). PamD (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I meant realistically nearly any small town in the US will have someone who is literate and has intenet access, therefore is able to contribute to en.wikipedia and has the motivation to write an article about their home town. But in Bhut-phuk Gnowhar, North Korea (pop'n: 325 including water buffalo), it's less likely there is an English-writing person with internet access. Outside of that town, it's unlikely there is someone willing to put in the time and effort to write out an English wikipedia article on the town. Ideally we'd have an article on every single small town in the world but realistically the number of people who can write that article and want to for a town outside of North American and/or the UK is extremely small. It's a throwaway comment, were I my druthers I'd erase most of the small town articles irrespective the country, but I'm a deletionist. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

TB Absurdity and RIdiculousness at my talk page

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

re TB Absurdity and RIdiculousness at my talk page. PPdd (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi stranger! :)

Hi, popping in to say hello and to let you know about something that might be of interest to you and your talk page stalkers. There is a new policy, guideline etc, not sure exactly which it's going to be, at Wikipedia:Town sheriff. I personally think that editors need to be aware of this since it is going to go to the village pump to see if it can be tested or acted on. I just want to bring this to other's attentions since I think this could be a big change. I'm not sure how or even if this is going to be advertised so that editors are aware of it so I think word of mouth is needed to make sure that editors keep an eye out. Anyways, I thought this would be of interest to you and I hope you will watch list it and keep an eye on the discussion and where it moves to and so on. We have to be involved in new policies and guidelines that are being suggested, even if it's just so that we are aware of them if they are in fact enacted.

On a personal note, I'll send you an email soon with the latest from here. I got out of the hospital yet again about a week and a half ago (not sure anymore, time and days are blending together these days). I've got a bad case of bronchitis which of course is what put me into the hospital. I was there again for four days but of course I had to share it with my beloved husband who is now battling with it too and so the sharing is going on again. I see the doc Monday and this time I will have him treat both of us so we can get rid of it. I can't afford nor stand going to the hospital again. Anyways, I'll fill you in on this garbage and some fun things in an email. (Disclaimer: My emails to WLU do not talk about the project, it's personal, ty). Talk to you soon, going to go lay down for awhile. Be well my friend, CrohnieGal^Talk 13:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh, sounds like a response to WP:CPUSH. Good on 'em. Send me an e-mail when you have time, between all the aggravating crap happening at acupuncture and real life stuff, I'm more likely to respond in depth via e-mail than wiki. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pharmanoia

I have a possible home for parts of User:WLU/Pharmanoia at the newly created Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine), which I would love to have on your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to migrate it. I'll add it to my watchlist, but these days I don't really check it that often. I'll have a read though, the title intrigues me... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS and medical conclusions for primary studies published in alt med peer reviewed journals

Since I learned MEDRS from you, I thought you might be able to help. Two editors reverted my deletions for nonMEDRS of medical conclusions in primary source studies published in alt med peer reviewed journals. I undid their reversions, citing WP:BURDEN. They keep putting it back up, saying vaguely only that I do not understand MEDRS. Having done phil of sci and data analysis at UCLA, then at Stanford for 11 years, then at Caltech for four, then most recently at MIT, I at least have the potential for understanding MEDRS. The dispute keeps recurring and is discussed here[1]. Maybe I am somehow wrong, but if I say this

"For example, the medical claims from the primary source study in 'Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine.' does not need a tag to be deleted."

, then cite WP:BURDEN, and all I have is a response like this

"PPdd, you apparently have seriously misunderstood the MEDRS guideline. I suggest that you stop deleting material, from this or any other article. At the very most, you might consider tagging specific material with . Note that you should use this tag only when you think it unlikely that the material can be supported by a reliable source, not merely to indicate that no one has yet bothered to supply an WP:Inline citation after each and every sentence. I think you would do well to do a diligent search for such sources before tagging anything"

, it does not leave me with much to either understand or respond to. PPdd (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Swept under the welcome mat - link

Hello, WLU! Welcome to Wikipedia! LOL and welcome to the club.[2] PPdd (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh, though I think the reaction to re-insert unsourced text and primary sources is a poor one, it is customary to not gut a page during an AFD. Of course, the current page is in no danger of being deleted or redirected, making it a rather futile reaction. It would have been nice to include the improvements, but there's a history feature, it's an easy fix. No point in getting worked up, I'll just wait for the AFD to be over and improve the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Creepy alt meds

Although my edits at acupuncture seemed to me to be reasonable when examined one by one, taken as a whole, the article has Creeped up to an unintended POV rationalWiki type article (on top of what are now apparent to me as outright POV edits on my part). Noticing that WP:Creep did not discuss creep in articles, I added a section there, which essentially says in a general way, "don't do what PPdd did at acupuncture". But I am too close to having just made the edits right now, and need to step away from it for a few weeks to get a more global perpective viweing the article to correct my creep errors. You suggested that you felt like going away for a couple of months in frustration, then coming back and doing a rewrite; that would be a good thing, except that you should not go away for a couple of months because your monitoring skills are just as important as a rewrite. The upshot is, did my addition at WP:CREEP accurately generalize my errors in a way that may help others avoid making them as I did? PPdd (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Since CREEP is about instructions and not mainspace, I would not argue for any information on how to avoid creep in mainspace (i.e. articles). In other words, I would suggest removing your edits - but consider creating an essay on creep that applies specifically to articles and linking it in a see also. Your inclusions on CREEP is, ironically, an example of instruction creep in my opinion. There's merit to the idea, but I would argue against its inclusion on that page.

I've been too busy with a lot of unrelated activity IRL and on wiki to pay much attention to acupuncture, and would prefer to edit only after I've done the reading. Much of my "monitoring" consists of checking my recent contributions to see if anyone has edited an article since me, so I doubt I'll notice many changes. This keeps me sane, and I'm not really motivated to change it. It's nothing to do with you, it's just habit that I've found helpful as a person. As an editor it's a terrible habit, and probably responsible for my last block.

I do still believe you're better off stepping back from acupuncture, possibly several articles, until you can see the difference between a neutral article and a scientifically accurate article (neutral articles by definition include extensive information that is not scientific, and wikipedia writes neutral articles even though in the case of utter nonsense like homeopathy and acupuncture this results in a bit of a gong show). If you haven't read WP:NOTDONE yet, I recommend it because it does speak towards the speed of your editing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed all the edits from WP:CREEP as you suggested. I wrote an essay WP:Article creep, which is an essay written from a new editor's perspective, which new editors are especially in a good position to see, as experienced editors likely had such experience in the distant past, when they might not have felt secure enough to write an essay. I incorporated the concepts used when the expression "article creep" was used in discussions before I came on board. More importantly, I tried to incorporate everything I learned from my mistakes by trying to incorporate comments on my editing, insofar as it pertained to creep. I have already pretty much stepped back from acupuncture and several articles, when you first hinted at it, even if you did not overtly say it. I understood what you said about WP:Rationalwiki, and saw this in my past edits at acupuncture, whether thourgh creep to POV, or by just plain POV edits. This is what led to me writing the article creep essay, an essay based on comments of other edits, an essay that I should apply to my own edits in the future, and one that I hope helps other new editors can benifit from in order to avoid my own past mistakes. I even included something about the value of stepping back, and about editing speeds, incoroporating critical comments and suggestions from other editors about my edits. I will now read the links you provided. (Incidentally, one reason for my high edit count is that I have been editing from very slow shared IP addresses, so using the preview button causes edit slowness to double, and I keep expecting a "gold star program" edit, which only rarely occurs, and which I should have learned better not to do long ago when I first leared Fortran (am I really that old?). PPdd (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTDONE is now added to the WP:Article creep essay. PPdd (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Hey WLU. I just wanted to respond to a short comment you made on my talk page about moving the discussion elsewhere. I have no problem with it at all, so by all means continue (What's my talk page for but discussion, anyway?). Sol seems to know a fair amount about the topic, and I think he could be a very useful contributer once acquainted with policy. In addition to welcoming him because he's new, I've been trying to put him on the right path to hopefully yield some quality sources and content for the page (which I agree could use work). Anyway, I appreciate you jumping in and helping with that too. A few editors on the page can be harsh, but I hope he's having a good experience despite them. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The same could be argued of PPdd, who is about 3 months ahead of Sol, but 6 months behind a mature contributor. Just to let you know, Sol has probably been frustrated with my responses more than once, because despite my insistence on sources, I do have a strong personal viewpoint (which I can substantiate, with reference to high-quality sources so yay for me). I would say Sol is still of the perspective that there is a "right" acupuncture page that mostly consists of what s/he was taught in school, and is far less critical than what I would see as the "right" page - and often acupuncture schools lack a rigorous skeptical or scientific education, with virtually no awareness of proper research methods, why a placebo is important, and why blinding is necessary (source; it's in there somewhere, I think Bausell writes in the introduction that CAM therapists are rarely trained on how to conduct proper research, which is why so much of it is bad and self-confirming). I'm definitely one of the "harsh" editors in general, but normally with people who push a POV and don't back down. Hot mess that the page is, aggravating that the participants are, at least everyone is being civil and not blindly reverting or edit warring. But they're still very raw, particularly if they think acupuncture.com is an adequate source when they haven't cited anythin by a sinologist. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the question isn't whether acupuncture.com is a good source, but rather whether it's alright to cite experts who write for it. Short answer, per WP:SPS: yes, it generally is. As long as we accept that acupuncture.com is not going to represent someone else's writings as those belonging to (e.g.) Peter Deadman, then it's fine as an SPS for that author. As for who's an expert on the practice of TCM, I think we can go with authors cited by the NCCAOM as sources to study when prepping for their exams. No? --Middle 8 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would you use a website when you have scholarly books though? There is a lot written by many respected scholars, so using books is far, far preferable to a website. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Primarily as a convenience link of sorts, usually an addition to citing a book (especially in the case of acupuncture.com printing an article by Deadman that substantially reproduces material from his book). But we could also use them to fill in gaps here and there as long as the author is an expert. The medium isn't what's important in this situation; the author is. By "this situation", I mean presenting uncontroversial pedagogic material within the authors' specialty, i.e. the clinical practice of TCM. If that doesn't fall under the exception noted in WP:SPS, I don't know what does. Quote: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --Middle 8 (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A convenience link is when you cite an actual work (i.e. a journal article or book) but there is a link to the actual work on another page. If acupuncture.com is hosting a reliable source, then you aren't citing acupuncture.com, you're citing the source and using acupuncture.com as a convenience link. If you are citing something written by the guy who wrote the book on a.com, you're not using it as a convenience link, you're using it as a reliable source based on the author's expertise, or a "link that is convenient". In that case, with so many actual sources, you are always much, much better off citing a real source. It shouldn't be used as a substitute for a real source in my opinion. The medium is very much important because it is one half of the RS equation, the reputation for accuracy and fact checking of the publisher. What is acupuncture.com's reputation for accuracy? Does it match university press documents? I doubt it, so cite the book. Yes, SPS does apply for uncontroversial material (i.e. what Deadman thinks about history or clinical practice of acupuncture or TCM) but not for medical stuff (i.e. is acupuncture effective and does it link to something biologically real). As in "acupuncture needles are inserted into traditional acupuncture points" is OK, "acupuncture needles inserted into traditional acupuncture points can cure cancer" is not. And anything not substantiated by actual research, or contradicted by actual research (i.e. "acupuncture points are real and represent the places in the body where connective tissue lines intersect") would not be OK. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Needham

I have to apologize for some of my more combative posts on the acu talk page. This has been a frustrating process for me, as you well can tell. I also wanted to thank you for taking some time to get into the Needham. Much of my frustration is with the historical/theoretical scholarship guiding the main page. The sources of History and Theory which drive the main page must be based on rigorous and expert scholarship, i.e. must come from the sinological field. Needham brings that rigor, as well as Unschuld. Also, TJ Hinnrichs' book (a historical revue of chinese medicine) will be out soon, and should help immensely. As I have said, I am all for the criticism from Biomed, have at it! I just want the criticism to be leveled at the theory that is enumerated by experts in Sinology and that defined within the field (more from the former), not Biomedical experts and historians who waded into the sinological waters, some (like Houvassi) with the expressed aim of discrediting the practice. There is simply no dabbling in Sinology, it is just too difficult!Luke643 (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you mean Kavoussi, his article is a perfectly acceptable source to give minority voice to the idea that acupuncture has strong astrological roots. His argument is also supported by Needham & Lu as far as I have read, who do explore the astrological, cosmological, numerological and mystical roots of acupuncture. Kavoussi is a useful reference for a minor point, but shouldn't be portrayed as the whole history of acupuncture - that's where PPdd has been overreaching in my opinion. But he still should be included in the page, as should the many investigations and claims that acupuncture points, qi and meridians have no known biological or scientific equivalent. I will write the best page I can, that fairly describes TCM concepts, but right now I can't see it making acupuncture seem justified as a medical intervention beyond pain and nausea or something supported by modern science. It is perfectly valid to write an article discrediting a practice, if that practice can't be supported empirically. And Kavoussi isn't writing to discredit, he's writing to illustrate that acupuncture isn't a science-based practice with origins in Chinese scholars doing double-blind tests. Like all pre-modern people, they were mystics working on a body whose functions and functioning they didn't understand, using magic, divination and prayer. All valid for inclusion. Please don't think that just because I'm reading Needham the entire page will be written from an uncritical perspective, but I will do my best to be fair and attribute minority opinions as necessary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

totally in agreement on Kavoussi (correctly spelled) being a valid minority opinion. I also agree that acupuncture isn't a science based practice. That is all totally fine with me. You may have misinterpreted my goals here, I am pushing for a more critical perspective, however one area of disagreement we seem to have is what precisely that means! However, I imagine we would tend to agree on much more then we disagree. I urge you however to temper your definition of 'pre-modern people' in regards to China and Chinese culture. In terms of History, Philology, Phonology, Heuristics, Hermeneutics, and Epistemology, the Chinese were equal to (with Hellenism) or far ahead (post Hellenism) of their counterparts worldwide. In the Qing the push toward rationalism and evidence based study in these fields dramatically increased the quality of scholarship. The question as to why a scientific revolution never happened in China is complicated, and best left to Nathan Sivin, who has devoted nearly his whole career to the study of Chinese 'science', some of his work is available through his own page at UPenn. But the important point is not to fall into the classic orientalist pitfall of assuming that everyone who picked up a needle or wrote a treatise on medicine was incanting spells, divining and praying. It would be faulty to suggest that even a majority were massively superstitious, though the liminality of Chinese culture never had the tension of Christian culture, making the division of sacred and profane much wider and significantly more vague, and so determining the level of mystical-magical practice is very difficult, even for experts, such as Sivin.

Surely there was a significant population (particularly elites) who leaned toward rationalism, humanism, and anti-superstition, from at least the time of xun zi, and that should not be ignored in favor of antiquated western essentialism. It is ahistorical and uncritical. Particularly because the writing of medical texts, that have formed the foundation of TCM in America, was performed by elites, who were far less likely to be magico-mystics than their fangshi-ish counterparts in the lower levels of society. Still not science, but that may not be the point. Chinese medical theory is a meta-physical theory based on observation of putatively universal correlations and correspondances, that formed into a cohesive system some 2000 years ago. (see Unschuld, Nan-Ching for more) It has been driven far more in its history by practical concerns (epidemic, regional health concerns) than by mysticism and religion, which I am sure you will discover in reading more.

Lastly I caution your use of the phrase "whose functions and functioning they didn't understand," as we in the biomedical sphere also do not understand much of human biology and physiology. An MD in many cases can still not tell you why you have a cold, or a migraine; will still prescribe ridiculous and un-tested medications, not to mention our almost imperceptible knowledge of the brain and brain function. So we clearly have a long way to go. The methodology of Science is not designed to destroy and eliminate everything it cannot prove, it is only to make strong claims of the evidentially backed concepts, and to make no claims of those not backed. Holding up minority opinions as root facts is a classic straw man technique designed to dismantle, and is therefore a-scientific. So the acu page, an encyclopedia entry after all, must be approached carefully from a variety of postions, not just the strong MEDRS position, which should at times be subordinated to the non med RS (a point we mostly agree on).Luke643 (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No culture came close to the knowledge available to the modern culture, post-scientific revolution. It doesn't matter what the Chinese were doing, did, or knew - they were prescientific and even if using effective interventions, their explanations were mystical nonsense. This is universally true - the scientific method is a method. Anyone can use it, no-one did before it was developed. The scholarship systematized the nonsense, but it was still nonsense and Needham & Lu make this very point. Not everyone may have been using magic, but none came anywhere near close to what was actually happening. A coherent system of nonsense is still nonsense, ask any schizophrenic. I'm extremely unlikely to support the idea that China magically knew more about the world than anyone else without a really good set of sources. The Romans were great engineers, probably better than anyone else in their day - but that doesn't make them right. Rationalism isn't the same as empricism, the Greeks, Chinese, Popes and Arabs were all "rational" in their own way - but still wrong. Evidence? They still haven't found any reason to believe in acupuncture points or meridians, and there's not much reason to think they ever will. They still haven't found any good evidence acupuncture is good for much beyond pain relief and nausea. It's not a disease-modifying intervention.

Your claims that we don't know much about biology is rather staggering considering what we do know, particularly in comparison to any culture before the scientific revolution. Not knowing anything right now only means there is more work to do - but what we will learn will stand up to scrutiny or be replaced with a more accurate picture as methods and testing converge on the truth.

And as I've said many times - the failings of modern medicine, if you can consider a lack of perfect knowledge a failing rather than merely part of the journey, do not in any way justify a nonscientific endeavor. It's a false dilemma, it's not "either science is right or acupuncture is right". Science is usually right because of it's method. Acupuncture, if it is "right", is "right" by happenstance. Science will strip away the non-essential parts of it, discover any grains of truth to be found, and integrate them into a true understanding of the world. The methodology of science very much is designed to destroy claims it cannot prove, because it is up to the claim maker to demonstrate their claim has merit. You want acupuncture points to exist? Prove it, in a fashion that can be replicated by anybody. If they're there, then they can be demonstrated by anyone with the right knowledge. The fact that you don't need to pierce the skin, you don't need to needle specific points, you don't need to believe in qi or meridians, you don't need to use needles at all, is certainly evidence against the hypothesis that acupuncture was anything but a dramatic placebo, or nonspecific effect. If it survives, I'm pretty sure it'll be as a low-cost, low-training intervention where all the rigmarole about qi, meridians, points are discarded in favour of needling the least dangerous part of the body.

But whatever, I'll base my edits on the policies, guidelines and sources. This debate is kinda like playing "CAM bingo", but accomplishes very little. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If the metaphors are useful, why eliminate them? If they have internal cohesion and structure that assists in understanding the mind and body, why drop them? Personally, I use chinese medical theory entirely in this way, as useful metaphor. This is very personal, and in no way a part of the greater discussion I was attempting to generate.

you seem to be constructing a large scale argument with a shadow. I have not made most of the points that you are refuting. What I am essentially saying is that the spectrum linking magic and insanity on one end and hard line scientific based empirical knowledge on the other is very wide. Not all 'nonsenses' as you call them are created equally. For example, there is indeed a very great distance between distance faith healing and Acupuncture. One is a completely ridiculous, the other is a rational system based upon thousands of years of empirical observation, that modern science has only been able to substantiate in cases of nausea and pain. It is a method that is in its infancy in terms of trials. And, as you said, many of the tests have placebo troubles, but bringing up these troubles is an obfuscation. The confounding element Ernst and others mention is that even the placebo groups perform better in some cases than western interventions. What he and many others suggest is that we build better tests. This call is not based on yours or my feelings and opinions about acupuncture, it is based on what those studying it are calling for. Yet you are dismissive out-of-hand.

However, that was not my aim in writing above. I was attempting to give you an explanation of the very present rationalism of Chinese culture from at the least the Han Dynasty. I brought up non-science disciplines to build upon this point, suggesting that Science is only one of the great rational and intelligent expressions of the human mind. The other important ones being History, Philology, theories of knowledge and meaning, and of course, the arts of writing, rhetoric, poetry, and philosophy, all areas in which China excelled to tremendous heights long before the scientific revolution of Europe. The very true fact that China did not produce a scientific revolution has for 160 years in the 'West' produced an image of China as inferior not just in science (which was true) but in every area of scholarship (which was not true).Luke643 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Biology is biology, not metaphor. Doctors don't use metaphor to diagnose, they use biology. If TCM practitioners do, that is because they don't actually know what's going on. A doctor may explain using a metaphor, but if a metaphor is their only understanding they're going to kill a patient. I am thankful that no one attempts to treat real illness with acupuncture.

Acupuncture may be rational, it may be empirical, but science uses both plus method to control for bias, which is why it has converged on real answers in a mere handful of centuries that have eluded all others despite millennia. I see little difference between distance healing and acupuncture by the way, you can say one is metaphor and the other is nonsense but both are unsupported and in neither case is there a reason to suspect anything is happening beyond placebo. Obfuscation comes from insisting acupuncture needs special trials that the rest of science does not, or the use of special pleading to explain away inconvenient results like all types of sham acupuncture being found equal to "real". Those cases where "western" results (i.e. medicine) are things like low back pain where usual care isn't particularly effective, and thus patients do not benefit from placebo effects. Meanwhile, exotic acupuncture is so vastly different from usual care, its placebo effect is still quite strong - assuming that it's not all placebo. So even if acupuncture is effective, it may only be trivially so.

Science and nonscience are not comparable. Science is unique for its emphasis on empiricism and control of bias. I have no problem with saying China had great literature, art, engineering, philosophy and whatnot, but they didn't have science. Theorizing about acupuncture is, in my mind, about as valid as theology. And about as productive. I've never claimed China never had a scientific revolution and therefore the west is better. No one had science until it was developed in Western Europe. If they had, they would have dominated the world because of the impact science has on knowledge and technology. Countries and cultures are "inferior" and "superior" in terms of political and technological power for many complicated reasons that I certainly don't understand. But science's use if discipline, bias control and empirical research means once you question and strip away all the awful crap that used to "explain" reality, you're left with a potent mixture of facts that can actually be useful. Acupuncture is still mired in the crap. If its just a metaphor, then discard the metaphor and demonstrate what is actually happening. Don't just assume it's working and stop investigating. Accepting acupuncture without testing, verifying or controlling is corrosive to science for the same reason intelligent design is - it stifles creativity and lets people accept lazy answers that explain nothing and advance no theory to generate new knowledge. If acupuncture actually works, then prove it instead of trying to co-opt the allure of science without its inconvenient doubt, difficult questions and taxing methodology. To do otherwise is just lazy, not to mention pseudoscientific.

On a strictly wikipedia note, you shouldn't be using the personal to adjust any page, see WP:OR and WP:V. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I never suggested much of what you are arguing with, and I agree on most of it. I look forward to the day when science can better explain a whole host of phenomenon, acupuncture included, but I do not take your hard line, and I think it is misguided. There is much we do not understand biomedically and physically, yet we theorize all the time. String theory is an elaborate example, and was taken very seriously by the scientific community before it was eventually (though not yet fully) dismissed. String theory sounded good, and had some math behind it, but ultimately was just an incorrect theory of the physical universe. If you understand Chinese medical theory as a theory, based on some metaphorical language, you can do two things, study it, the way string theory was studied, or dismiss it out of hand because the language makes you uncomfortable. The latter is the methodology of many in the biomedical community. Much of the discourse on acupuncture has been colored by this bias, which is largely based on raising up the most uncomfortable language and saying, "see? it must be ridiculous!" while ignoring the practical and rational aspects of the practice. This is bad scholarship to say the least. I urge better.

On the last point you made, I am not sure what you are talking about. I have proposed sourced changes to the acu page only.Luke643 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Science already has a pretty good explanation - placebo. Seeing as there has never been any good proof of acupuncture points, meridians, or qi, and there's no reason to expect it, I'm sticking with placebo as the most parsimonious. Better scholarship must include as a possibility that all the theory of acupuncture is as much bunk and nonsense as humoural theory was. Most scholarship is credulous and doesn't consider this explanation even though there is a lot of science to support it - acupuncture points don't seem to exist, nor do meridians, nor does qi. It doesn't matter where you put the needles, it doesn't matter if you penetrate the skin, it doesn't matter if you use needles or toothpicks, but it does matter if the practitioner is enthusiastic or not. Sounds like placebo to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

When to react to trivialities?

At the acupoint redirect discussion, some editors used some very uncivil language or assertions that implied bad faith in my edits, such as "butchery". I really don't care about name calling, and can usually spin it into a twisted kind of complement, so consider it trivial, and not worth responding to. But use of such words or implied accusations of bad faith turns a discussion from the merits of the proposal into a series of ad hominem attacks, and future use of such words might make another editor with more sensitivity to trivial insults go away. Is it appropriate to bring it to etiquette alerts, even if I don't really care personally, and am only doing it for the sake of focusing the discussion, or stopping a future use of the words against editors who might react differently than me, especially when etiquette alerts have, for me, ended up making new friends, rather than escalating bad feelings? (One editor commented "this is a strange etiquette discussion", commenting on its light hearted nature.) PPdd (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider this - when an editor says "you butchered the article", they are criticizing your edits. There is certainly a flavour of incivility in the sentiment, but it's not a personal attack - which would be "you are a butcher whose editing skills are so sub-par you are an inherent detriment to wikipedia". And frankly, most "personal attacks" as perceived by editors are not considered such by the community at large, which is why most editors require fairly thick skin. Someone who permanently leaves at that level of criticism would probably leave anyways because that sort of criticism is inevitable. Butchery doesn't imply bad faith on their part, it implies a criticism of your skill level and understanding of policy - could be worded much, much better, but you must admit they are not alone in their sentiment (and it's not a bad thing, everyone needs time to learn and you're in your growing pains phase).

Honestly, the best way to respond, and I'm a huge hypocrite with this advice, is simply to not respond to any of the less civil items. If you don't care personally, just let it drop. If you think you had a point that isn't being understood, I would suggest bringing it up, civilly, perhaps on their talk page. Somewhere on wikipedia there's an essay about being saccharine-sweet in response to incivility, polite almost to the point of mockery. It actually works, but it's very unsatisfying (unless the editor apologizes or admits you have a point, which is actually the most satisfying response in the world).

I've never found wikiquette alerts to be helpful, either participating in them or just reading through them. They weren't around when I started here, perhaps that's why - I missed them when passing through my critical phase of learning where I was most likely to be incivil. I saw the strange etiquette discussion comment, and I will note that Dicklyon said you were charming, but still problematic. That's a good message to take home.

The best place to see this sort of thing unfold is on WP:ANI, WP:AN or even WP:WEQ as a lurker (I really wouldn't recommend posting on any of those pages as a commenter for a while, that's a great way to associate your name with a bad flavour in a lot of experienced editors' mouths. People may not remember why they dislike your comments, but it's amazing that years after an interaction I've long since forgotten, I still have a positive or negative association with their account). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

thnx. PPdd (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WLU, it looks like you have taken another editor under your wing. Good for you.  :) @PPdd, you won't go wrong with WLU helping you out. He did with me and I am a much better editor since that time, though my being bold in artical space has me short on being bold. The advice given above is the usual from WLU, he has a way to make newbie editors feel more comfortable here at the project. There are a lot of policies and guidelines here that it gets terribley confusing. Nevermind when editors start changing them to show what the community norms are. Just watch out for his tempor <laughing> --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to pass the help down to the next new editor. PPdd (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with alt med vandals?

There is a constant creation of new account names with no edits except the same repeated vandalism at TCM. They are likely all the same person, but may be a group, as all of their acts of vandalism are the same, such as deleting the same image with no explanation. My shared IP address is very slow, so I cannot keep up. Other editors are making edits in between the acts of vandalism, making it even more difficult to correct. What is the best way to deal with this? PPdd (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's actual vandalism (i.e. not pushing a credulous POV, more like replacing the page with "FUCK") you need to request page protection. Probably semiprotection would work, but I haven't read the policy in a while. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor independently noticed the vandalism and possible SP violation, and is helping. (As an aside, an editor who created an account at about the same time as "these" many single edit editors, came in to talk and announced from out of the blue something like, "I'm not an alt med proponent, I'm a 'student of allopathic medicine'.", a very unusual expression for a med student to self describe themselves with, something akin to a stoned middle school student randomly walking up to a cop and saying from out of the blue, "I'm not stoned".) :) PPdd (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're really concerned about sockpuppeting, you should look into sock puppet investigation.

Yeah, no one but alt med nutters uses "allopathic".

Final note - Bittergrey may give good advice, I'm not bothering to read it. But I will note that in terms of pure number of edits (around http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Bittergrey 1200] at this time) he lacks experience and in my mind tends to start disputes rather than resolve them. You may want to take his advice with a grain of salt. Of course, I'm the one he's disputing with so take my advice, particularly on this matter, with a box of salt. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Salt ain't worth what it used to be. As far as Bittergrey starting disptes, I can fix it. Bittergrey, if you start a dispute, I hereby threaten to tell you another joke! There, that ought to fix things. :) PPdd (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

This might be of interest to you

Hi, would you mind looking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites and giving an opinion on the essay? The reason I thought you might be interested is that you have written essays so you have some insight into what they should be. If not interested, you know the drill ;), please just ignore. Hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...I had a look at the page itself, and don't really have an opinion either way (I'm rarely in a situation where I have a comment on any of the links mentioned). A rough tally of the !votes suggests it will be kept, I have a hard time with MFD because the rules are a lot less explicit. Thanks for the note! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Coffee enema

Studies are allowed to have different results and different views. Not displaying one side of the argument is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.201.2 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The best studies are negative - a series of case studies are not equivalent to a randomized clinical trial. That study was negative, and there wasn't any reason to expect it to work in the first place. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss article content issues on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're talking to the anon, not I? I've commented on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Who can resist jumping in to coffee enema? Loong ago, I was studying Japanese Butoh dance. I worked an entire year on a getting a girl about my age in the dance company for. She was one of the founder's of Wired Magazine. The she suddenely annonced she had met and was taking off to Japan with Timothy Leary, who was multiples of her age. Another girl about my age joined, and a year after that I started dating her, when she suddently announced she had met and was taking off to Japan with Timothy Leary, who was multiples of her age. I never saw Leary other than these two times. The second girl was a performance artist who made paintings on stage by giving volunteers from the audience grape juice enemas, poised over a blank canvas. PPdd (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Basics, check?

If you get a minute, would you double-check my expansion here. I just want to make sure I didn't introduce any, well, errors. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, honestly my stats are crap and I've never managed to memorize what a type I versus II error is. It looks OK to me (bar one basic grammar fix) but I'd have to re-read the entire page to see if it reflects the body. Math, stats and the like are difficult pages to write well without sounding like a textbook, so I can't say I've got a great idea on how to polish up the lead. I can't see any more obvious errors but please, please, please don't take my word as gospel on the matter! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Clear thinking, logical thinking, and statistical thinking, don't always overlap due to jargon. I did find an error (or introduced one!) [3] here. I'll run this by one of the more mathy folks. Thanks again. Ocaasi (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That whole page needs more sources and a re-write; the lead looks pretty detailed (it's rare in my experience to see more than one example in a lead, even though in this situation it's probably warranted). My first thought on seeing it was "huh, that seems like something you might want to express in a table" - perhaps have one, or multiple tables talking about what a type I vs II error is for each group or test:

Type I and II errors in law enforcement

Null = Defendant not guilty	Defendant is not released	Defendant is released
Defendant is not guilty	Type I error - innocent person wrongfully punished	Correct decision
Defendant is guilty	Correct decision	Type II error - guilty person not punished

Or perhaps that's too complicated. I may not have any helpful suggestions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You got reverted

Hi, he reopened it saying more needs to be discussed. Arg! here it is. I'm done with it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is of interest to you. Please see this here. Saw your message, will think about what to do. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ball lightning

Good day! I need an advise of you. I tried add an external link in article ball lightning. This link was such: Videos Films, depicting the fireballs (in Russian). It was deleted. I tried to explain my position at Talk:Ball lightning in section About two new external links. During Revision as of 19:28, 17 March 2011 (edit) Daffydavid changed the link to the form: Video of Ball Lightning,Lightball Video Two amateur videos of suspected Ball Lightning. The videos also are available in zip-archive, and may be seen with the help of VLC media player.

But then Beach drifter deleted the link. Moreover at 20 March 2011 he deleted also this information:

• Fedosin S.G. and Kim A.S. proposed (2000) Electron-ionic model. ,

which was in section Other hypotheses. Now I don't know what to do in such situation. Fedosin (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out how to thread conversations, I was wondering how to do that. As for Fedosin, the material he keeps adding is much more extensive than what he has said on your page but I'm sure you will notice that. I have problems with it because it is his own research. Fedosin is Fedosin. Therefore his material requires verification and citation by others. Try as I might, I can find none. Instead of providing these he has asked for opinion. I am no expert on Ball Lightning, but I am usually pretty good at finding references and citations. Being fairly new to editing, I concede I may be wrong, but it would seem that this material being added by the author himself would require even greater due diligence on his part. I look forward to reading your opinion. Daffydavid (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll head over there in a bit, I've been distracted by other nonsense. It's now on the top of my wikipedia priority list, which puts it several entries below my actual priority list. But I should get to it by the end of today. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Should anything be done?

Hi, he's inserting new information into his post after we responded to it. He shouldn't be changing things after editors posted a response right? I am so frustrated with all of this already that I don't know what to do about things at this point. Any ideas? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I doubt anyone is reading those links, and if he does I doubt they're reaching the same conclusions as Bittergrey. I would say it's permitted, but messy, to add more "information" to old responses. But does it really add anything to his response, does it make his responses any more valid, does it invalidate any other editor's comments? I would say not, I would say it merely adds to the absurdity of his objections. I'm not going to bother responding any more, I would recommend you don't either, and we either wait for external comment or archiving. I know it's frustrating to see accusations go unrefuted, but they're about as convincing as a 9/11 Truther's arguments and thus have no real impact on us as editors. I say just leave it. I doubt they're nearly as convincing as he believes them to be. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Also I'm not responding any more either unless it's something extreme that needs a response. I just want this all to stop already. I know you feel the same too. I guess we have to do a wait and see game here, yuck! Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology comment

WLU, I saw your comment and understand exactly what you're saying, but since I stepped into the middle of flying bile in a shit-fight, I thought I'd make it as fair as one can make these things, particularly in anticipation of some revdels that might lead to warnings or even edit blocks. It was my way of announcing that I intended to do exactly what you said should be done according to WP:PPROVEIT. Admittedly I expected a flame storm accusing me of vandalism, barbarism and the odd atrocity; that hasn't happened.

It was always my aim to take any of that crap on my chin rather than to see some of our more delicately inclined fellow editors cringe away from challenging persistent crackpots. After years of this horseshit I figured one more week ain't gonna kill anyone, and it would short-circuit fake outrage after the 29th. So I figure I'll stick to my game plan. That's not to say that I would lose any sleep if someone else made some edits prior to that day.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mostly I wanted to indicate my support for the removal of unsourced information - based on common sense and policies. Do it now, do it later, either way I think it is the appropriate thing to do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

Response at Talk:Coconut oil#Further reading 2. --Bejnar (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Iranian Azeris

Dear WLU

I have had a discussion in the article Iranian Azeris for a long time now. However I feel I am being rejected ground by the oposing Iranian view presented to me by Iranians. Recently I was able to present very reliable reports from UNHRC as well as both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. However these were not replied to in a weeks time so I took the initiative of editing the article. I was very astounded when a fellow editor, without a signle comment deleted the whole section I had created. He said "conduct changes with a discussion" however he failed to acknowlege the fact that there was a 20 paged discussion which he himself contributed to in the talk page. A discussion in which he did not reply to my last argument. After i explained this to him i reverted the page. Then an (Iranian) administrator came and said there is an edit war and I should not edit. He also deleted my section and said my sources were not reliable enough. However he did not feel the need to discuss as to why they were not reliable. Please help me out.

Thank you for your time. Regards, Tugrul Irmak Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Satanic Ritual Abuse

Hi WLU, I think there's been one name long overdue in the annals of SRA promotion and that is Liz Mullinar, who is quite well known in Australia. I saw your updates to the Valerie Sinason page, and used that as a template to start one on Mullinar at Liz Mullinar. Just FYI. MatthewTStone (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Had a look, will have another in a bit. Looks OK, needs some sources! There's several on google books but I'm not sure about the quality. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:WLU/RFC

There's a template for everything on Wikipedia, even draft RFCs in userspace. ;) {{Userspace RFC draft}}   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was told a while back for a RFC I was drafting that it was rude or in poor taste to keep it up if not used quickly. At this point there hasn't been enough disruption of actual mainspace pages to warrant a full RFC but based on past history I don't really expect BG's behaviour to change. In the past, this sort of thing has been tedious to manage, so I'm essentially doing it in stages. If BG actually does change, or stops editing, then I'll never use it. If disruption and persistent revisiting of past "wounds" continues, it's there. In the meantime out of courtesy I blank it after each edit. I could keep it up, but it may be there for weeks or months, may never even get used, and this seems less threatening. If you have any suggestions, I am open to them. I'm trying to navigate a balance between open (i.e. on wiki rather than off-line, with all versions clearly visible in my contribution history) and unthreatening (i.e. just leaving it there). Obviously interpretations of my intent and success in each goal will probably vary. Irrespective, I'll add the template if I edit the old version again.

The diffs themselves speak audibly on their own, so I won't comment on them here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. Do as you think best. But let's not overly discourage editors in fringe topics. If they don't write about them who will?   Will Beback  talk  10:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but I'm not attempting to discourage him from editing a fringe topic, the goal of the RFC would be to discourage him from continuously importing disputes to new and inappropriate locations. And he's discouraging other editors from editing fringe topics, I'm studiously avoiding any article that would require interacting with him because the experience is so incredibly aversive and he's so immune to rational discussion that it's affecting my mental health. I might edit a much shorter, but well-sourced set of pages were it not for the pointless acrimony that would result. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you ever decide to go live with this please ping me. I'd be interested in responding to this. I agree that right now may not be the right time though so I think what you are doing is wise. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Given I haven't had to update the page in a while because I haven't seen any problematic edits (indeed, most have been civil and meaningful contributions to the discussions) I'm not really planning to do anything with it. If it ever does result in an actual RFC then I'll probably alert you, but as far as I'm concerned anyone who can drop a bad habit and edit civilly and productively deserves to be here. There's no point in "punishing" someone who isn't causing problems anymore. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree! Wow and you said that so nicely, I'm impressed. :) Sorry couldn't help myself. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm very eloquent :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ddoing a search to find a half a dozen Village pump links well....

Hi again, could use your help. I noticed yesterday that sections I had hidden are no longer that way. I tried to fix it but couldn't. Then I noticed the same thing is happening at article and on talk page which leads me to believe that the software has yet again been changed.  :( So, do you have any idea how I can return the hiding to my talk page expecially my images? In case you don't remember, some of my images are quite graphic and make editors, like you, sick and/or uncomfortable. I don't want to delete them but that being said there has to be a way to hide them again. Please, if you can help, or even any of your talk page lurkers, please tell me. WLU, you have permission from me to go to my user page if you so desire, to see if you can get something to work. I am so frustrated with this. I am tired of the technical people changing things without so much as a warning. GRRR! They could at least warn everyone that this or that will no longer work. I'd suggest AN/i or AN since that seems to be where a lot announcements are made. Thank you for listening to me, including my mini rant :). --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

When I look using Internet Explorer, they're still auto-hiding. Whether that's because you changed them from {{divhide}} to {{collapse top}} or if it's just your browser, I'm not sure - I'll try on FireFox when I get home. Could be that they updated the software, could have been a change to the templates (I couldn't see any), could be security features. If you're still seeing problems, let me know and I'll try digging a bit more but I'll need more information.

Oh, and those images still squick me out, eeeeewwwwww!!!! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I checked with FireFox and Google Chrome and they all look OK to me - all are auto-hiding. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

DPD

Dear WLU, I added material 5 March 2011 ....Depersonalization and also Depersonalization disorder [4] You deleted perfectly good information on 7 MAR 2011 that I added on. This was important information for wikipedia users. Please explain your actions. I would like to know if you read the "sources" that were correctly sited? If you did not, why the delete? If you did then please explain yourself. I would like to know what your background interest is on this "subject". My goal is to help people. Vanlegg (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

[5]

I sent a message on another section. Here is the diff. Vanlegg (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Information can't be "perfectly good", wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to help people or a collection of miscelaneous information. That book is about a low-notability person whose inclusion would require original research. It's not scholarly, it's not academic, it's essentially one person's experience. That person is of low notability, as indicated by this AFD result. It's not appropriate to include every single mention of any person who has ever had, or published a book about depersonalization disorder. I have however, removed other trivial mentions from the depersonalization disorder and depersonalization pages, which I should have done previously. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear WLU, I don't think you are offering a sevice by taking this extra information off. The section is "popular culture" and that means that it is not to be excluded from an encylopedia. (I hope you are not "ripping away information from other sites". That would be something close to "destruction" of information.) NOTE A: By definition: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

"Wikipedia's articles provide links to guide the user to related pages with additional information" You are destroying these links to additional information. I think this should be halted or it will be reported.

NOTE B: This person is not "low notability" She has her PHD....(Do you have your PHD in this area? Please answer that. If you don't then how do you defend your ability to judge?) By definition "source"...is defined on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source

IT looks like I don't have much more to say. It is sad that you are making this site "LESS VALUABLE". This is your.....contribution....BRAVO...hmmmm????? ENJOY your life...if.....as best as possible. CHEERS.

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Her work, her book and her publisher are reliable. I would like you to disprove this, and show your credentials with respect to this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanlegg (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC) ..... Vanlegg (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with the policies. The book was a biography of a non-notable person (please see that link, and the AFD link, to see what that means here) and not a scholarly volume. The fact that one person had a depersonalization experience is not worth noting. I don't need to show credentials, since credentials are meaningless on wikipedia. Blue Dove Press appears to no longer exist, and when it did exist it appeared to publish new age tracts, which are not medically reliable or particularly scholarly. I doubt it has a particularly good reputation as a publishing house considering it had a grand total of 12 books in its catalog.

Thank you for your concern, I very much enjoy my life and also enjoy my hobby of maintaining wikipedia as a meaningful, reliable reference. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on depersonalization. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1.Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. 2.Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You're probably not at three reverts yet, but see WP:BRD. Edits are justified on the basis of the policies and guidelines, not personal preference. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This person is not a non-notable person . You say "I don't need to show credentials,"...This proves that you are destroying work from biased point of view. This is called "tendentious editing". See the link below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing

Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions.

Your slant on the publisher who went out of business...."I doubt it has a particularly good reputation "....is only a biased opinion. They published books for the public (Wikipedia is for the public too...a reminder). It may be you have a "religious biased POV" that makes you destroy/delete any material that "you think" does not correspond. This is not correct. NOTE: She finished her doctoral program and obtained licensure as a psychologist. She did her studies at The Wright Institute. Again, I would like YOU to present your credentials. You don't seem to wish to cooperate. Here is a link to the school. http://www.wi.edu/program.html

Vanlegg (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started discussions on the relevant talk pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Segal

Suzanne Segal is about done content wise, though not editing wise. If you want to take a look, go ahead. P.S. I left a bunch of sources on the Depersonalization disorder talk page. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 06:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, WLU. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I've always wanted to try out this new template :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Reference source question + 1

I've been thinking of editing a page but I'm hesitant because most references are from sources that are only available after payment. My question is -- Is this (only paid source refs) acceptable on Wikipedia? My bigger problem is that the article contradicts itself and the entire section is referenced to the same author. It seems unlikely that the author would contradict themselves but since it's a paid source I can't check without ponying up the cash.

My +1 question is I tagged an article with {{pov}} and no one appeared to want to discuss it but 1 month later a user has removed the tag. Is this user correct in his action as per wikipedia guidelines? Thank you for any assistance you can provide. Daffydavid (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL - sources must be accessible, not convenient. We always cite the source, the fact that it can be linked to is just a nice advantage.

Pages should not be tagged indefinitely, and as the template page says - it requires an immediate justification on the talk page. If you raised your concerns on the talk page and no-one addressed it, then removing the tag is inappropriate. If you tagged the page but didn't give a reason, that was in appropriate. Best is to address the non-neutral issues by reference to reliable sources - telling both sides if there are two sides. Sometimes there are (Celebrex is an effective pain killer but it also increases the risk of heart attacks and a good page should discuss both). Sometimes there are not (creationism has absolutely no scientific justification). Depends on the issue. Either way, the tag staying up for a month isn't really appropriate. I rarely tag pages, I usually find the sources that are necessary to substantiate the controversy and expand accordingly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, I just want to acknowledge your message on my talk page that I haven't responded to, yet. I ended up back in the hospital. It was a close call this time, really bad. Hubby decided to force me to go to the hospital with the 911 call since I was refusing to go. It's a good thing to because I wouldn't be here today if he didn't force the issue. When you get time, drop me an email and I'll fill you in. Right now I am home and hopefully it's for good. I went in last Thursday and got released Tuesday afternoon, I think (a lot of this is a blur to me). I've been doing pretty good since I got home but I tire easily. Well I just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring you. Get in touch and/or I will. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pulitzer prize winning

Amazing. Just the right amount of snark and sarcasm. I wish I could write like that to those who test my patience. I just prefer telling them to piss off and I move on. Well, I loved it. Laughed my ass off. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The secret is to not let them pretend they've won. I was thinking about an extended metaphor, thus:

Me: The moon is a large, rocky body that orbits the earth.

BM: The moon is made of cheese.

Me: The moon is not made of cheese. They landed on the moon and brought back rocks.

BM: The moon is made of cheese. They landed on parts of the moon that are rocky.

Me: The moon is not made of cheese. Years of scientific evidence and observation support this. A cheese moon would be destroyed by meteorites and gravitational forces.

BM: The moon IS made of cheese. It's very strong cheese. Or it keeps getting replaced by the moon-cheese factory. Big Astronomy doesn't want you to know it is cheese because it would affect sales of telescopes. What if Big Astronomy just hangs up a cardboard cutout of the moon whenever it gets destroyed? Therefore the moon is made of cheese.

Me: The moon is not made of cheese, there is no proof that Big Astronomy exists and it is irrational to expect so many scientists would lie for so long. Also, a cardboard cutout would not be cheese.

BM: The moon IS made of cheese. Big Milk is keeping the truth from the people so we won't mine the moon for cheese.

Me: The moon is not made of cheese, it is not economical to mine the moon and transport anything, cheese or not, from the earth to the moon. Plus, this contradicts your assertion that the beliefs about a rocky moon are maintained by Big Astronomy, which you haven't actually supported in any way.

BM: THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE!!!!!!! SHUT UP!! I'M GLAD I WON THIS ARGUMENT!!!!!

Me: No it's not and no you didn't. The moon is made of the same materials the crust of the earth is made of.

BM: The surface of the moon may, perhaps have rocky elements to it. But underneath the crust, it is solid cheese.

Me: Cheese is made up of fat, protein, water and gas, while rocks are made of, well, rock which is much denser. A cheese moon would not exert as much gravitational pull on the earth, and we would be able to tell the difference between a cheese-core moon and a rock-core moon through the influence on the tides.

BM: ...(erases discussion) I like pie. Therefore I win.

Me: Sigh. Moron.

It's like arguing with Tracy Jordan. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Big Astronomy!!!! Too funny. You could write for South Park! That's what I find in these discussions, the moving target. We had the same thing in the Causes of autism article. Dr. steals money, so vaccines cause autism. No, he stole money, but has nothing to do with his research. Vaccines cause autism. No, they don't, all research disproves that supposition. Mercury in vaccines cause autism. No it doesn't. Big Pharma causes autism by force feeding mercury to kids. What? You must work for Big Pharma to suppress that. Huh?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Bruce just removed all of my commentary on his talk page. I'm guessing he finds it frustrating to be consistently unable to respond. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. You make his denialism difficult to support. Oh well, you and MastCell did the best you could!OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Though his most recent comment suggests he may be changing his mind on some issues (or giving that impression for other reasons) - Greg Louganis might actually be on HAART (with a corollary that even though he is on HAART, HAART is still unnecessary, dangerous, and beliefs about it are due to a grand conspiracy). Propaganda is the creation of lies through dint of repetition. I'm attempting something similar, but for actual empirical facts. If I keep repeating my points, if I keep worrying at it like a dog at a bone, eventually repetition should make it more likely to shift a position even slightly. And if you can shift a position even slightly, then that's progress. Michael Shermer was once a young-earth creationist and it was only through years of arguments that he moved, ever so slightly, towards respecting science. Now he's probably the most prominent popular skeptical writer in the US. All through baby steps.

I have amended my hypothetical dialogue above to reflect these new developments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I love the additions. I hope the hypothetical dialogues is updated as the argument progresses. You know like modern science is unable to detect the moon type of cheese, because it is completely different than earth cheese. It is made of moon milk, which has a higher density than earth milk. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And moon cows, that only live on the far side of the moon, eating moon grass that grows during the 14.25 days of the month where it's illuminated - presumably spending the remaining 14.25 days in hibernation or possibly storing metabolite like cacti. Naturally, since the crust is mostly rock, then the grass would be mostly rock too, leading to heavier milk and cheese. There's your Occam's Razor! All you need to do is assume the existence of a completely novel form of biological life and the explanation becomes simple! Even more so when this neatly explains the motivation for Big Milk - moon cheese is much more valuable than "earther cheese" and only the superwealthy can afford the biological processing necessary to make it edible instead of poisonous which is why only the super-rich members of the Illuminati and Freemasons know about it. NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE!!!!! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And you forgot to mention that the moon landings were faked by Big Milk, because then it would have shown solid evidence of the existence of cheese. When Armstrong jumped off of the lander, he would have sunk into the cheese, and said "that's one small step for man, and one giant step for Wisconsin." OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's it, clearly you win the internet. I could work a thousand years and never come even close to being that funny. Kudos sir, kudos. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I get a special bonus from Wikipedia? By the way, I apparently have been a bad influence on you. Sorry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you've never monitored my contributions very closely. My tolerance for fools has been growing heavier (is that the reverse of not tolerating fools lightly?) and they seem to be breeding.

Your only bonus is the satisfaction of a job well done. Don't you feel a little shafted? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely shafted, because I know that admins get paid very well and earn bonuses for the number of blocks they make. Yeah, I disappeared for a couple of years (Federal Prison, living with Sasquatch, selling Homeopathic water, something like that), and it seems to be a bit worse around here. The civil POV pushing crowd seems to be running this place. Many of the good admins have walked away or cut back. I guess the money wasn't good enough.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Infant oral mutilation

Thank you for helping with my contribution on Infant oral mutilation. You altered reference 9 last week and inserted a pdf to the Developing Dentistry journal, which is great! However the reference 9 relates to the published evidence for IOM in Rwanda and this was not in Jenny Wordley's IOM article (in the same issue) but in H.Benzian's article (specifically on page 22: first column,) where he states that IOM is very common in Rwanda. I'm not sure how to correct this - can you help? The reference should read: Benzian H. World Developmemnt Fund: Rwanda Project Visit Report. Thank you so much! Hildarene (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. All I've done is replaced the raw text versions of the articles with citation templates. They're a bit fancy, using {{cite pmid}} and PubMed numbers rather than template parameters for the most part, but the core information is the same. The Benzian article is just a simple citation template, {{cite journal}}, to change it you have to find the parameter you need to edit the section as usual and replace whatever is wrong with the correct information (in this case, last =, first =, title = and pages =). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Hildarene (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me again please,WLU? Reference 1 is Jenny Wordley's important article which, as well as being published in Launchpad, was also published in the Developing Dentistry issue of reference 9, which we discussed earlier. Could you possibly change reference 1 to cite "J. Wordley. Infant Oral Mutilation. pages 19-20" of Developing Dentistry 3(2):2003? It could then have the direct link to the online paper, which the Launchpad one doesn't apparently have. Thank you for taking the time to help with this! Much appreciated! Hildarene (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. If you're planning on editing wikipedia that much, these are pretty easy fixes you could make yourself and they would be good practice. If you're only planning on working on the IOM article, it's probably faster to get someone else to do it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 09:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I'm only concerned with the IOM article and am unlikely to have the time to be a regular Wikipedia editor! Very grateful for your expertise! Hildarene (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, if you need further help I will see what I can do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture

Once again, you show more patience than I could in a lifetime. Once I see a POV pushing person, like the one calling the article a skepticism article, I'm done. You fly them to the moon, show them the rocks, dig down deep to show them there is no cheese, fly back, cook them dinner, and they bring the wine. I'd have left him on the moon with one hour of O
₂. But I'm evil. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big believer in process - if the rules are explained, if the objections are clearly laid out, if there is an honest effort to deal with the concern, then it's pretty easy to demonstrate that the process is fair, the problem is the person. Plus, I like winning arguments and it's usually easy to do in cases like these. I've always enjoyed shooting down a blimp with "but real medicine kills people". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, have a look at talk:vitamin C megadosage, you may not like my latest comment but I'm open to input on it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so much into the winning and losing thing. Once these editors push a pseudoscience, my brain really considers them a lost cause. Besides, I abuse them, you and MastCell treat them nicely, but they don't get anything they want, and I'm ecstatic. Bad cop/good cop, I suppose. With respect to Vitamin C, I'm not sure I see anything that you've written that would annoy me. Vitaminman thinks there isn't a bad vitamin/dosage out there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I must have misread. And I dearly love winning arguments :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Create a mini-project to bring the articles of Neda, Mohamed Bouazizi, Khaled Said, and Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb up to GA/FA status. Possibly expand to include others whose deaths became symbols of war and peace (i.e. Pat Tillman). Would you like to work on something like this? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, every time I say I may be able to contribute to any sort of sustained effort I inevitably crap out. The only way I can keep editing wikipedia is if I just stick to what interests me in the moment. Good luck, one thing I can help with is if you need a proofread or wordsmithing. Aside from that, I'm almost inevitably going to disappoint :( WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You've yet to disappoint. ;) Proofreading would be great. I'll let you know if we get it up and going. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do so, I actually enjoy proofreading and flatter myself that I have some small measure of ability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we're all spread too thin. Stick with the medical articles, because there has been a huge drop-off in numbers. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Lay off our proofreader! (WLU does nightwork as a crack alternative medicine and social science source-erer, copyeditor, donchaknow?) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly Ocaasi, there has been a huge drop-off in editors of medical articles. Two years ago, my watchlist would spin through articles. I could never keep up. Now, articles aren't edited very frequently, and it's not because they're good. The only editing I see is the occasional POV pusher or random IP troll who comes through and tries to say that something or another works. Or that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Or the blah blah blah does blah blah blah. WLU, MastCell and two or three others are the only ones around. And half the time WLU is mining cheese on the moon (see above or an archive). Anyways, my comments were 57.3% humor.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take the other 42.7% and just note that I wouldn't ask WLU for something trivial. These articles are some of the most important in the entire realm of modern politics and social science. Besides, all work and no play... dull boy. That sort of thing. So WLU, if you need a break from ridding the world of medical misconceptions, you know where to find me. Orangemarlin, less baseball chat and you'll have a new lease on C-Class core med articles. My weakness is help documentation, but at least it works it's way around. Baseball I lost passion for after I realized other pitchers would keep growing, and all of the sudden my 47 mph sinking fastball wasn't as clutch. Cheers, 57.3. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/HistoryBioLife. Might need a new name, but check it out... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually add much content these days, I usually just check my contribution history and watch for edits on my most recent article activity. I think we've seen a drop-off in content and contributors because most of the articles are adequate enough they don't need the raw work. We're getting to the point that it requires specialists to add and adjust content. I know if I want to adjust acupuncture and do a really good job of it, I'll have to do a lot of reading, reading that even the pro-acupuncture crowd is unwilling to do for the most part.

Also, I don't get, and don't like sports metaphors. So I shan't be playing with you two in that regard :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've created a new and hopefully amusing page: WP:SVB. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bad influence

Now you're dropping f-bombs at Talk:Acupuncture. The admins will be blaming me for this situation.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I drop f-bombs all the time when my patients is exhausted and the person I'm talking to is showing evidence of illiteracy or being unable to understand my points. No worries, I was already corrupted. Fortunately I've yet to run into an admin who considers my overall behaviour problematic. Perhaps it's my enviable charm... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the template:pmid advice

Thanks for the template:Cite pmid advice! I could see what it was doing. And now I know about cite doi as well as a few others I am less likely to need. I also needed to fix a few minor bugs in the citations that I had entered. Definitely cool! M.boli (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Makes generating citations a whole hell of a lot easier than it once was. I'm just surprised there's no {{cite isbn}}. You may also be interested in pubmed/isbn Diberry's template generator, incredibly useful, uses the pubmed number or isbn to automatically generate a citation template for you; the most useful if you have a pubmed or ISBN. Used to be my favourite citation generator until {{cite pmid}} showed up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Protocol

I'm uninterested in this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

<span id="I'm uninterested in this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)"> WLU - you may or may not recall some edits that I had proposed some time ago, regarding the Marshall Protocol. Originally, the article read more as an endorsement, but after your revisions, was fine. However, I now notice that some significant re-edits have been made by proponents of the protocol. For example, references to Marshall's "hypothesis" appear to be presented as authoritative and peer-reviewed, but in fact are mentioned in a privately published book (i.e., Springer publishers). Another point of concern: the Marshall Protocol authors cite "physicians" as prescribing Benicar, leading to the inference that physicians may be routinely adhering to, and prescribing the protocol, when in fact, the vast majority do not---as it is not an approved FDA therapy. Thus, I think there are a number of issues here, but I'm not quite sure how to proceed with edits. So I'd appreciate if you could took a look? Ronsword (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll sharpen my knives and have a gander. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ThanksRonsword (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done if you want to look. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. And I just corrected a few typos, so we should be good to go.Ronsword (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow up and say, your commentary on what is, and is not appropriate (example: recent Marshall Protocol talk) is excellent and essential reading for any Wikipedian. I have learned much from these exchanges about what is, and isn't valid presentation per the very nuanced and necessarily, rigid guidelines of Wikipedia. As an advocate of alternative/complementary therapies, it took me a while to really assimilate this concept. And now, I use my own quick-reference guideline when considering material for entry or editing: if it's not something you'd see in the NEJM, or in a treatment brouchure in a board certified MD's office, it likely won't work in Wiki as an authoritative article, regardless of the ongoing experimental research that may be happening and that may seem groundbreaking. (Yet, this concept is often difficult for contributors to grasp). Perhaps one of these days, you might do an instructive article on this very subject as per the flavor of a pharmanoia etc.? Just a thought Ronsword (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: there appear to be two current articles on "Trevor Marshall." One contains the recent BLP revisions with all references to the protocol and his theory trimmed out or deleted. But the other, also entitled "Trevor Marshall" consists of the most recent revisions to the original page, complete with the references to lack of secondary sources, clinical trials etc. More confusing (to me at least), when you enter a Wikipedia search for "Marshall Protocol," you are re-directed to a 'Trevor Marshall' page. I know that a new revision has been proposed just dealing with the 'protocol' so I'm a little confused as to why the two articles, same name? Should I change the second article title to 'Marshall Protocol' or is the entire article an oversight? Ronsword (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ronsword, before you make any more edits to the Bio, would you like to declare any potential conflicts of interest? Are there any relevant contracts you or your spouse may have signed with potentially hostile third parties, perhaps ? Trevmar (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? And what is meant by: 'relevant contracts signed with potentially hostile third parties'? Please explain so I might possibly put you at ease. Also, you might be better served response wise, by expressing your concerns on my talk page(talk) Ronsword (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There can't be two pages called Trevor Marshall. You may be seeing different versions of the same page. If you can link me to both, I may be able to sort it out. The reason you are redirected from Marshall Protocol to Trevor Marshall is because it is a redirect. Redirects are not perfect, it may be that we're better off with one page about Marshall and a second about the protocol, or perhaps we delete both as failing WP:N.

Trevmar, your accusation is uncivil and bad faith. You have a definite conflict of interest, Ronsword does not (that I've seen). Often editors who are skeptical or add critical commentary to pages are accused of having a bias. Sometimes they do, sometimes it's just that the person accusing them of bias has their own bias that blinds them to how a page should be edited according to wikipedia's guidelines. That appears to be what is occurring here. You sought outside input, and it ended up pretty much agreeing with my opinion. Such is the breaks. See WP:BOOMERANG. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I made no accusation, I made no assumptions, I asked a direct question. The question had nothing to do with Ronsword's editing. The answer was no, and that is now on the public record, so I accept the answer. Trevmar (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Over 45K

Hi WLU,
In X!'s Edit Counter, for users such as we, "Top Edited Articles are disabled for users with over 45000 edits."
But not for you. Your edit breakdowns are active.
Which magical power did you use? Varlaam (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No idea. My edit count is just over 45,000 (45,155 as I check now) and it could be that the difference is due to my deleted edits. I know I've got at least a couple hundred. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that's it.

I did "speak" to X some time back, by the way:

Since that legal case, or complaint, or whatever, the edit breakdown has been disabled automatically for everybody. You have to be pretty experienced to re-enable it, and few have.

Therefore I argued that the +45K group should get the feature back, if they want it, since virtually no one else has it active nowadays.

Fell on deaf ears, or something.

I like it; it gives you a decent idea of what the editor is expert at, or very interested in at any rate.

Mine's disabled, otherwise you would know that I'm really interested in the Care Bears, and My Little Pony. (Joke.)

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

45K edits? When do you have the time dude? Seriously, none of your edits are two words. They're like dissertations. Hahahah.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

S'not my fault my talk page comments have more in common with Bronte than Hemingway. In my mind, the problem is no-one seems to read or understand my posts so I have to explain them in minute detail. Now, what reality says about the situation... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI - ANI

hI, your contributions have been mentioned at ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Bio_about_me_keeps_accumulating_demeaning_and_Defaming_material - thanks Off2riorob (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just checked the history on Trevor Marshall and JIMBO HIMSELF has edited the page. Now I can retire. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get involved in that travesty, until I saw your name on ANI. I'm still amused that Off2riorob made the comment that I wasn't in Trevor's league. I think I graduated into the major leagues of medical research 25 years ago, and am ready for the hall of fame, based on my batting average, RBI's and stolen bases. LOL. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but there will be an asterisk. Because of the steroids. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There has been no proof of that vicious rumor. I stand by Barry Bonds, my bro. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What causing trouble again! :) I read the section, you continue to keep up your good work. When you get time drop me an email. I got out of the hospital, again, last Weds. That makes three visits, soon I'm going to get a room with my name on it permanently. Went in for the same reasons, infections and bronchitis with no oxygen level. I think 911 might be getting tired of me, what do you think? ;) In case you didn't notice I was leaving this project. I had blanked my user page and was close to blanking my talk page and saying good bye for good. I know I've done this before but this time I am being trolled by an expert troll that no one knows how to stop. Isn't that wonderful, not. I am going to stick around a bit longer to see what happens but I need to know what good I can do at this point. So an email telling me what good this project does and I guess a pep talk would be helpful. I had some wonderful emails sent to me though that I still need to respond to. I was first responding to an administrator which I am sorry to say didn't go as well as I hoped it would. Anyways, send me one and will catch up on things. You should be a home owner by now if my timing is correct. I hope to hear from you soon. Take care all of you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I kept thinking I hadn't heard from you in a while. I'll send you an e-mail, I just hope it doesn't lead to an accusation of off-wiki collusion, like last time :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Off-Wiki collusion sounds like a euphemism.  :) CG, I hope all is well. I got back into editing here while sitting on a hospital bed. I had nothing better to do.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OM, I don't know if you remember me but we used to chat ocassionally. I am glad you decided to return. Too many scientific editors have been banned lately I'm sad to say. I actually stopped watching a bunch of articles because of this too. So welcome back. WLU and I talk to each other a lot about all kinds of things. WLU, I look forward to hearing from you again and yes hopefully we won't be accused of collusion since we usually don't talk about this site when we do email each other. Now don't forget the pep talk that I really need. I also looked at the AN/i discussion, what a bunch of bull that was. You both take care. OM I hope your hospitalization wasn't an emergency type situation. I heard differentt reasons for your leaving and your return and you being in the hospital wasn't one of them. Well I'm off to go lay down and get some rest again. I'm getting tired of being tired all the time. :) Be well both of you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How could he not remember you, you're delightful!

OM, the short of it is a paranoid dipshit thought that since I mentioned I would be e-mailing Crohnie about a completely unrelated matter, that meant we were conspiring against the account. It was almost amusing as it was annoying. And stupid. You would have loved it. But no euphemism, we mostly just chat about medical stuff and our personal lives - the kind of thing that we have policies against on wiki :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are paranoid dipshits on Wikipedia? Imagine that. I'm shocked. I'm gobsmacked. I'm flabbergasted. Astonished. Astounded. LOL. Apparently my teenage humor got lost. Yes, Chrohnie, I remember lots of interactions. When I came back, I actually spent time looking at articles I used to watch. Lots of mess, not only pseudoscience, but bad mistakes. Lots of good science editors are gone, some just don't have the energy to fight the wars.... OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you'd enjoy the sadly moribund Citizendium, which actually respects expertise (to a certain extent, that project has been poisoned by pseudoexperts and I'm sure Trevor Marshall would get a more-than-fair hearing), and would support Raul's also moribund WP:CPUSH. If CPUSH had been pushed forward into policy (extremely unlikely, it would probably be akin to a paradigm fracture) then quackery would get much, much less play. It's not even really necessary - if we could simply say "prove it with explicit reliable sources" then block or topic ban the accounts that keep pushing despite that lack, most of the problems would go away. Instead, we grind editors through the sausage factory. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wound dehiscence

You might be interested in taking a look at wound dehiscence, since it also touches negative pressure wound therapy. Regards, W n C? 15:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the treatment section was unsourced, I am reluctant to leave it in place and have removed it per WP:PROVEIT. It needs more sources in general, I'm seeing what turns up on google books and will try to expand with better sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just basically rewrote most of it, have a look. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP Copyedit request

Hey, I did some work on an Egyptian activist. It's my usual comprehensive, carefully paraphrased, quote-farmy c-class work. Want to give it a look over? DYK should be up in a few days.... Kamal_Abbas Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a proofread. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paraphilic infantilism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my latest comment at ANI [6], protecting the page does not resolve the central issue of a source being inappropriately cited. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you

in a good way here. Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)--

Thanks for the note. I'm always surprised when I get called "calm and rational". Though I suppose I only include the word "fucktard" in my drafts.

I did say "mostly" patient and polite. Haven't seen many fucktards from you lately. I did once follow a link you posted to some very colourful language, though.

You may be interested in WP:CPUSH if you weren't already aware. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd heard of it but never read it before. Very frustrating folk. (Thought I'd just drive up your talk page stats with that edit summary.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to see "patient and polite", have a look at talk:paraphilic infantilism. I challenge you to read an entire section from August beginning to end and not say "what the fuck" out loud. I bet you a shiny nickel you can't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Been there. I saw an exchange between you and Fiachra on her talk page, so took a look. Fortunately I know nothing about that particular brand of paraphilia, so I was able to resist the urge to dive in shouting. On behalf of the universe, thank you both. I'm just fiddling in the lonely neglected gardens at the moment. I had a spell at Santorum (neologism) and that was enough intense interpersonal feeling to last me a while. Let me know if you ever think I can help with anything. I might say yes. What happens when you say "fucktard" in an edit summary --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I know what that spike is, it starts with "W" and ends with "ikistalk".

The only thing the page needs is what Fiachra is giving it now - a second account that understands referencing and sourcing. There's a steady accumulation of accounts familiar with Bittergrey such that he'll either stop editing and his problems go away, or he'll end up blocked or banned. Given his approach, it's pretty much inevitable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And so it goes. I hope you have a quiet patch of the sum of all human knowledge where you can tinker and be creative without being disturbed. You write well. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think so, but I just use my gifts to push a pre-arranged agenda. I'm really, really lucky that so many sources support my viewpoint, because otherwise I'd just be a POV-pushing douchebag who has to distort and misrepresent sources to shoehorn in a pre-selected viewpoint and construct wild, elaborate, highly unlikely conspiracy theories to justify why nobody else supports it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I'm glad you're inside the tent. I miss seeing OrangeMarlin rampaging about the place. Fuck mortality. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Shit, I can't believe I didn't notice that...and all this time I've been fucking around on some podunk little nonsense article. Shit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Eergh. Sorry. I was sure I'd seen your name among the well-wishers. Yep. Saddening. And annoying. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'd rather know. I think I'd heard inklings, but I'd assumed it was just a temporary thing and he'd be back to edit warring with POV-pushers in a couple weeks. If you ever get news that he's OK (or not for that matter) I'd appreciate a line. That's a shame. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy

Hello, I have recommended this article for resolution. All I want is a fair representation of the information from both sides. The talk page shows a history of frustration with accomplishing this, especially concerning NPOV. I think it is time it gets done. Nutritiondr (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The common thing with all proponents of BHRT is an inability to support their claims with meaningful citations. There are a very small number of sources that claim bioidentical hormones are miracle cures, and a very, very large number of citations published in highly respected medical journals that state otherwise. Per WP:UNDUE, we give appropriate weight to the representation of the majority of experts - which is to say the critics. The citations you added to the lead (which was also inappropriate, since the lead should follow the body) were not medically reliable sources, and certainly not comparable to what the critics publish. This is not the news, we do not maintain false balance. Most experts thing BHRT is expensive and as dangerous as regular HRT. That's the approach the page takes. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war report

I have made an edit war report involving you at EWN should you wish to remark or comment there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've commented, thanks for letting me know. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally not about Wikipedia :)

Ok, by now you have moved into your new place.  :) Email me about it all. What can I say, other than I love good news. :) Email me please pictures too, if you have some. I hope all is well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had sent you an e-mail, like, two months ago! I'll work on one today. The good news is, there are still pictures online! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with Japan-related contents.

As for Diaper fetishism, of course. The Japanese version of Wikipedia is infamous for the lack of citations due to the high anonymity of Japanese online environment. What can we do about this? People want to include Japanese pop-cultural information from the Japanese Wikipedia here and it's often uncited. Komitsuki (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's two answers. One is WP:PROVEIT where if it's not sourced, it can be removed outright. The second is WP:RS, more specifically WP:USERG. Wikis are not reliable sources, and can be removed much like something sourced to a blog. The exception is normally when it's the blog of the subject, used to source personal information, but that exception doesn't apply to wikis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

News --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, that makes me happy. Thanks for the note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

List of wikis

You object to the inclusion of WikiChristian in the relevant article by the following reasoning: "Notability is determined by the existence of a page, not by use on wikipedia and wikis aren't RS; criteria is a blue link." I do not understand at all what this means. What is "existence of a page"? And why aren't "wikis [reliable sources]"? (BTW, 'criteria' is the plural form of 'criterion'. I'm guessing you mean that if a blue link, a wiki link, exists then that means something.)-The Gnome (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS, particularly WP:USERG and WP:SPS, where both pages state "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."

A red link is a link that goes to a page that doesn't exist, like Wikichristian. Nobody has created the page yet. Click on the link and start editing and the page will be created. However, to continue to exist it must pass the notability guidelines, probably WP:WEB. I have no objection to Wikichristian existing as a page, though if it doesn't pass the notability guidelines I am extremely likely to nominate it for deletion.

Discussion at the list of wikis talk page consistently concluded that the list should only be of blue links, links to existing wikipedia pages. Otherwise the page would be an enormous list of external links and redlinks, and wikipedia is not a directory.

Correcting minor distinctions in people's grammar and vocabulary tends to irritate them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the Wikipedia policies you indicated. My point, once more, is that the relevant website is a wiki-coded depository of (Christian biblical) text and is used in this context only as such. The article that started this contains a single reference to biblical text and uses the WikiChristian website's biblical text for corroboration. (That would be Acts 27:8 of the Apostles.) We can cite an off-line source, such as an editor's King James or we can try for an online source. The latter is preferable, since we operate in an online context. But I'm almost certain we can only use secondary sources online for "the word of God" in Wikipedia. I do not think we can have an online, direct quotation from God.

As to the question about a singular criterion for the inclusion of a source or (possibly) multiple criteria, it was not trivial. Trying for precision and clarity, especially in a two-way communication context, should not irritate either side.

Anyway, this is not a big issue. I will search for another online source. Thanks for the input.-The Gnome (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiChristian as a RS

This issue has little to do with the inclusion of WikiChristian to the List of wikis. But I notice that, since the question about the List came up, you have taken to removing all the links to the WikiChristian website from Wikipedia articles using it as a source! Please note that the WikiChristian website is mainly a depository of Christian religious texts. And that is precisely its (only) potential usefulness in Wikipedia. Which is how it is used, actually, in the articles you edited. We certainly cannot use advocacy contained in WikiChristian, if any. Therefore, and since the work therein is demonstrably correct (in its text-reference function), I fail to see why WikiChristian would not be a reliable source for certain religious material in Wikipedia. Could you please explain what you're doing?-The Gnome (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please review my edit summaries, I am removing the wiki as an external link because of WP:ELNO point 12, which prohibits the inclusion of wikis. A source is used in the body as a citation to verify content, while an external link is used at the end to give the reader a place to go for further information that can't be included in the page for various reasons (please review WP:EL for more information). In one case I can recall, I also removed it as a source but in that case it was the second of two sources for the same point, and thus there was no question about removing it.

Wikis are not considered reliable sources because they are user-generated, and thus considered a form of self-published content. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, you can't cite X wikipedia page, you would need to find a proper source, presumably from page X.

In addition, wikis tend to be encyclopedias, and we are also discouraged from citing encyclopedias for all but the most basic information (see WP:PSTS) as they are tertiary sources. Wikipedia is based primarily on secondary sources. Finally, as an encyclopedia, Wikichristian is inappropriate as an external link. Since wikipedia is itself an encyclopedia, citing another encyclopedia is normally discouraged as redundant. ELs are meant to supplement the page, not duplicate the information contained.

If the Wikichristian website is primarily a depository of religious texts (in the sense of containing biblical quotations) then there are already multiple external links used for this purpose. If you mean it in the sense of multiple commentaries on the bible, if they are sourced then the sources should be extracted and used in the appropriate page. If you mean wikichristian itself contains commentary, then as a wiki it's still inappropriate unless you can demonstrate it's a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sea to Sea

I've declined your speedy requests as I don't think the category is intended to include compilations. Some of the artistes are blue linked, too. Whether the things are notable or not is another matter. It'll have to be prod or AfD, though. Over to you... Peridon (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, prod is the next laziest step... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

I am so new to all of this, I feel sooo... lost amongst this ocean of information. Are you able to adopt me? - I need guidance I am the administrator for a non-profit " Safe Families for Children" see: safe-families.org. We are in 20 US States and Canada starting up in London , soon. I already have a page of content ( for Safe Families For Children) and should start to work on the layout of the page with diagrams. There is a strong possibility that a second page will be forthcoming for "lydia home Association" based in Chicago which is the umbrella organization of Safe Families. Your coaching expertise will be much appreciated. Tackies (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you'd like. I would first suggest that you read the guidelines on notability, specifically WP:N and WP:CORP. In order for a wikipedia page to exist, it must be demonstrated that it is notable - this means coverage in independent, reliable sources. Newspapers, books, news stories, possibly some websites, ideally those of organizations that are themselves notable. Notability is always demonstrated, not asserted.

Right now the sub-page that you've established here is a first draft. My comments are, it's quite puffy, and in the form of a narrative. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for promotion or a publisher of original though. We solely write about what can be verified in reliable sources (generally the same that demonstrate notability, but once notability is demonstrated you can use the organization's own website judiciously. If you look at the lead of most articles, it's got a fairly standard structure - states the article name, then defines what it is. You've got a whole bunch of "context" which is relevant to the mission statement of your organization, but isn't relevant to an encyclopedic article.

Some other comments. You've used ^TM, which per MOS:TM shouldn't appear. You need headings to divide the page into sections. And finally, as the admin for the organization, you have a significant conflict of interest. You shouldn't paste the page into mainspace on your own. Instead, you should ask another editor to review the page and move it themselves. I'm happy to do so, and in the meantime the article can stay in your userspace, but ultimately it should be reviewed by someone experienced and independent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Varieties of astrology

This section was created by me as a temporary solution to house material that choked up the lead. It essentially duplicates another section, "World Traditions". The person who originally wrote the material is user:Itsmejudith. Can you consider merging the "varieties" section into the "world traditions" section. Frankly, I don't know anything about this area, and it seems to me that you know what you're doing. You might want to ask Judith for help, as globalization of the article is a primary concern of hers. Thanks you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've worked with IMJ before, I would expect us to work together well. If it's not contentious I may try to make some time to adjust it - I'll compare the two sections the next time I look at the page. I don't know much about the other types of astrology and don't really know much about the "Western" version, and am not really interested in killing good information to chase the bad. But I'll have a gander. Incidentally, have you seen Robert Todd Carroll's entry on Skepdic regarding astrology? It is an acceptable parity source in my mind, paper/google books preview or electronic/website. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Created a new article and requesting feedback and advice

Requesting feedback and advice on the article I have created. I am a graphic novel enthusiast and am naturally happy about high quality graphic novels starting up in India. This article is about a particularly good and popular Indian graphic comic/novel and would appreciate feedback, suggestions and advice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varunr/Level10_Comics Varunr (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ernst 2006

Do you still want a copy of Ernst 2006 per this request? Email me and I'll email it to you if you want. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gracias, look forward to reading it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

problematic tone

this is the second time in as many posts that you expressed frustration with inexperienced editors and laid out 'expectations' for my behavior (as though you were my parent, or my boss). This is not at all consistent with wp:AGF. I'd prefer if you would reword those two posts so that they no longer sound frustrated and contemptuous of other editors. thanks. --Ludwigs2 17:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Those editors need to realize what's wrong with their comments on the talk page and adjust their behaviour accordingly. I am frustrated with the source-free, content-light debate that has been going on for months now and am expressing it. All this pissing about the pot with opinions is a flatly stupid waste of time, anyone who wants to adjust the main page needs sources. As I've said repeatedly, I'm fucking sick of wasting time debating. I'm making perfectly clear what I expect of everyone. It's 100% in compliance with wikipedia's policies. Editing complicated, contentious and lengthy pages like acupuncture requires a fairly significant investment of time in locating, summarizing and understanding sources. Everyone is wasting time with opinions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The article talk page is not an appropriate place to register your frustrations or your anger at other editors; that is a clear violation of wp:CIV. Compliance with policy is expected of everyone - youself included - and using the point to bludgeon other editors is not appropriate talk page behavior. You don't have to reword if you don't want to, obviously, but if you don't you are contributing to an already hostile atmosphere on the page. Common sense would suggest that removing obviously inflammatory prose is a win for everyone on the page. --Ludwigs2 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes the problem is the editor, which is why we issue blocks and page bans. I've stated, repeatedly, for months, the problems with the pro-acupuncture editors' complains on the talk pages and referred extensively to policy. When an anonymous brought up specific issues with sources, I dealt with them. Herbxue I've discussed the need for sources and specifics. Dickmojo has done nothing but proclaim science can't understand his woo. In each case I've explained why this is a waste of time. For months. The same bullshit. So yes, my patience has run out. Now it's time for people to put up or shut up - get a source or stop blaring opinions on the talk page. I deal with vague generalizations by reference to policies, I deal with specifics by reference to sources. I deal with repetition with a short temper. Please show me the issue and suggest another way of dealing with tendentious editors who never seem to hear my points. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It has not (apparently) occurred to you that the stiff opposition you are complaining about may be due to the intrinsic bias in logic that I discussed in article talk. In my experience, even the most far-ranging advocates can be reasonable when they perceive that their perspective is being treated with fairness and respect, and that even otherwise calm and reasonable editors can become extremely adamant about perceived bias. You are holding out for a stringent medical perspective that is non-neutral, unfair to the topic, and (IMO) unsupportable under policy, you defend the use of dismissive and contemptuous language towards other editors, and yet you are surprised that the result is conflict? How could it be otherwise?

Editors like Dickmojo are easy to work with if you adopt a collaborative attitude. On the other hand, if you adopt a hard-line attitude in which only you understand the 'correct' perspective and everyone else must listen to you, you will always have editors like Dickmojo being a thorn in your side. That's because there will always be someone insulted by the fact that the treatment of the topic is non-neutral and unfair. If you stop being adamant about your own perspective and allow the article to shift to a more neutral tone, all of the conflicts over the article will evaporate overnight.

You need to think of neutrality as a cusp point, a place where the differing forces of policy, culture, knowledge, and belief settle in and largely cancel each other out. A page like this - where so much energy has to be applied so consistently to keep it from changing - is not in balance, and that's a sure sign that it hasn't achieved neutrality. If you want peace (consensus) on the article you're going to have to give a little; there's no other way to achieve consensus (peace).

But I've said enough. You're clearly unwilling to change your wording to a more mild tone, which is what I came to your talk page to discuss. the rest you can consider on your own (or not) as you choose. --Ludwigs2 21:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Stiff opposition might be because of ideologically committed advocates who are unfamiliar with science, cognitive biases and the actual evidence base beyond their own anecdotes. I'm not holding out for a stringent medical perspective, merely that the page reflect the best evidence regarding acupuncture's medical efficacy. If a large number of studies find that acupuncture is no better than placebo, how should it be represented? If there's no evidence it's a useful intervention for anything but pain and nausea (perhaps infertility), how should it be represented? Dickmojo is a thorn in my side because he keeps going on based on his personal experience. I don't give a shit about his experience as an acupuncturist, I care about the sources. He's brought nary a source to the page, despite me repeatedly pointing out sources are mandatory and personal experience is worthless.

Neutrality itself is according to sources, not editors. Neutrality is not asserted, it is demonstrated - through reference to reliable sources. Which is again why I am pissed off at the continuing assertion in the absence of reliable sources. I've edited many a page with partisan editors, strong opinions, and a controversial evidence base. My response is always the same - sources. So instead of attempting to convince me to take the talk page opinions of committed practitioners seriously, if you genuinely want to convince me to the merit of your perspective I suggest you find sources to substantiate them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You really need to go back and read wp:NPOV again, because what you are saying is not jiving with the text. Beyond that, I cannot make you look at your own relationship to the topic if you do not want to. I am not myself naive enough to believe that I am innocent of wrong-doing just because I know other people are guilty; I would hope you are not either. The world is a little more complex than that, n'est-ce pas? --Ludwigs2 20:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

The vote is for anybody, not just administrators, so you can move your "support" vote back. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit to see what happens to yours :) I don't spend much time on ANI, I thought community sanctions was for arbitrators only (administrators was a very long typo). Thanks though, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Not without.

Hi,WLU,you edited Pir-e-Kamil without adopting any wikipedia:policies and guidelines,you should wp:be bold to edit but not wp:vandal.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the definition of vandalism before accusing people of it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

refs

as a rule I prefer online communication to email. any texts you can get would be cool - I don't want to put you out, so maybe start with the ones you think are most central to that section the Ernst would be good (since it seems to be a bone of contention), and I'd prefer good research to mere opinion and commentary. maybe it's easiest to set up a temporary drop-box with the PDFs; but whatever works for you. thanks for getting me what you can. --Ludwigs2 04:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't e-mail you any references unless you send me an e-mail first, you can't attach a source from wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested a dropbox kind of thing. --Ludwigs2 12:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know how to set one up or use it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

When PRODding

When PRODding an article for deletion, please make sure you say that in the edit summary. Don't just say it's not notable - that might just be adding a notability tag. It is important for other editors to be able to see quickly in the history that an article has been PRODded. Thanks, LadyofShalott 13:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, will try to remember this for the future. Thanks for the suggestion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

seriously?

[7] what part of 'let's not clutter up every thread with this' do you not get? --Ludwigs2 01:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Ahahaha irony.
2. I didn't make that comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Snake Oil - Personal RfC

Hi WLU. I bumped into User:Herbuxe on the Acupuncture talk page, which led me to the Snake Oil page (which he's been editing). I performed a few copyedits, but unfortunately, after searching, I was only able to turn up a few semi-reputable sources. One of these was this article, from Scientific American, which has some staggeringly positive things to say about the topic, sourced primarily to Richard Kunin. If you have the time, I'd appreciate your input on the content I added, particularly the "Claims of efficacy" section. I'm uncomfortable with the claims the article is making that snake oil is effective, since it's all sourced back to one alt-med advocate, and my paragraph doesn't help that, but I'm unaware of any sources which critically examine the topic in an academic setting. Are you aware of any? I searched pubmed and google scholar briefly, but may have missed something. Even without sources, if you can think of a better way to phrase that content without the implication of "proven efficacy", that would be great. Obviously, if you're tied down or don't have the time, then don't worry about it :) I've just appreciated your efforts on other articles in the past, so I figured I'd drop you a line. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm...sounds like a situation I would deal with via MEDRS and PSTS. If there aren't any secondary sources that are validating the claims, then the page shouldn't really go into detail. I wouldn't even normally venture a "proponents claim" section.

I don't have time to look into it now, I'll try to get to it in a day or so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting the page after reading the SA article, I would suggest splitting the page into two - one on the term "snake oil" as a stand-in for quackery, and a second on actual "snake oil" extracted from snakes. Perhaps Snake oil (term) and snake oil (product) or something similar. As for claims of efficacy - it's only real claim is that it's a source of omega fatty acids (of which there are myriad). I would point out it is a good source, and perhaps link to a recent review article that points out the best evidence supporting the health benefits of omega fatty acids, and leave it at that. Essentially I would split the article into two stubs. The SA is a good source for both actually - history of the term snake oil and the modern uses of snake oil (in terms of "advocates claim"). In dealing with claims of efficacy, I would simply say that proponents say it does X, it has been suggested it might have an impact due to its omega fatty acid content. Single sentence containing both point and counterpoint. Proposed methods don't deserve much text, either to explore benefits or to debunk it.

I can help you out with this, though I'm unlikely to do the actual work myself anytime soon. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

WLU I am sorry to have misplaced my frustration and wrongly accused you of obstruction. I saw the word "no" in your edit summary so many times I kinda blew a fuse. I see it ruffled a few other editor's feathers, but didn't seem to phase you very much. Herbxue (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the acupuncture talk page since my last post there, so I'll read that page with this comment in mind. Thank you for the heads-up and reconsidering your comment. Admitting you've made a mistake is hard to do, and I very much appreciate it that you took the time to leave me this note. If you ever did want help in pasting in policy links I am happy to help with that. It's pretty simple, but you do have to memorize a lot of abbreviations. It's a very handy skill here, good practice and excellent discipline for editing both main and talk pages; referencing a policy gives editors a more common understanding and means you take an extra step to be sure you are in line with the purpose of the project. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing's changed

The same old cast of douchebags still populate this place and still are incapable of getting their facts right. Being as circumspect as possible, can I presume it is you who is beating down the anti-vaccine folks on a certain scientifically strong medical website? You may email me to confirm, deny, or just bitch about the stupidity of the anti-vaccine cretins. I think I'll stick with my geology articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean sciencebasedmedicine.org where my user name is WilliamLawrenceUtridge? No worries, if I wanted to keep the connection a secret, I'd use a different handle :)

Yes, you may presume it. How I wish that website could be used as a reference here! I don't know if you've read my most recent posts, but I genuinely don't care about the stupidity of antivax nutters. I always found myself intrigued by some of the comments by morons like that until I did the basic reading necessary. I mostly do it to point out what's stupid according to the basic science out there for any on-the-fencers who might be reading.

I'm glad you're back OM, stick to the geology pages for a while perhaps. According to what television tells me, if you get angry your heart could explode. [http://www.infowars.com/history-channel-documentary-validates-chemtrails-and-weather-warfare/ And they can't put it on TV if it's not true, right]? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Alex Jones and Infowars makes me want to puke. Anyways, I thought it was you. My mercury/thiomersal/formaldehyde/fetal parts vaccines have enhanced my deductive reasoning skills. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell people about vaccination's enhancement of your deductive reasoning! Then everybody will want them!!!! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

They'll start drinking them. Then they'll start stealing them. Then the Mexican Drug Lords will import them from factories in Venezuela which add purified formaldehyde and additional aluminum salts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I have a theory about antivaccination nutters and evolution which makes me hope they follow-through with your plan en masse. More candy for the rest of us. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Butting in here, but maybe you'll know what I'm looking for. There's an article somewhere that describes a UK newspaper that reported anti-vaccination nonsense over a longish period with reckless credulousness, leading to a considerable drop in vaccination rates in the area where it was read, leading to an outbreak/epidemic, leading to pointless deaths of children. Several people I've mentioned this to vaguely remember what I'm talking about, but can't remember the details. I just can't find the original article anywhere, and it's killing me! Ring any bells? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Read up on Andrew Wakefield. He published an article in Lancet, which was later retracted, that falsely showed a link between certain vaccines and autism (to simplify matters). This caused a precipitous drop in vaccinations in the UK. Brian Deer of the Sunday Times of London found the fraud (though many physicians and scientists were highly skeptical), and basically debunked the whole thing and caused Andrew Wakefield to shrink away to the USA, where he's still a hero of the anti-vaccine crazies. I hope that helps. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks OrangeMarlin. I'm familiar with the Wakefield story and the general idea of anti-vaxxers – the article I'm looking for was about one particular newspaper whose reporting caused a decline in a particular vaccination in a localised region within the UK (sorry that wasn't clear in my first post). Might have been MMR, might have been whooping cough, or something else; I can't remember. But this article/blog managed to estimate an actual number of deaths attributable to this newspaper's poor reporting. I think the title was along the lines of "[Newspapername] killing off its readers". This was a while ago, and it's possible I'm misremembering something, which could explain why I can't find it. I'm looking for it because there was a shockingly bad piece of reporting about vaccinations in my city's newspaper, described here. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an Orac post to me but digging a bit on the site I couldn't find anything. You're not talking about the Huffington Post are you? Sounds like just enough research grinding that I might try looking into it today. Feel free to dump any more info that comes to mind on my talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain it was British. No worries, don't put yourself out – I just thought you might've recognised it off the top of your head, since I know you've been interested in such things for a long time. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

...except now it's bugging me because I'm pretty sure I've read the same blog post. I'll keep this in mind and see if it ever turns up. If it's British press you've got a lot of choice in who might be killing their readers. They've got a TVTropes page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)