Talk:David Gorski/Archive 1

Discussion
Hello, hello... I'm going to give it go on updating this page a bit.. Cap020570 (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome! The article needs some reliable secondary sources. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 22:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've got my googles out and found some good background links and a few interviews and some speeches he's done. It'll take me a bit, but I'll get it done. Cap020570 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keithbob and others. Cap020570 is going to be working on this page "off-line" for the foreseeable future. So their edits will not appear on this page.  It is all happening on a user page. Please continue posting URL's and suggestions here for Cap.  We are hoping editors do not edit the live page for Gorski in the mean time.  We are planning on releasing a new re-written page with major changes and improvement for a DYK.  Our goal is to improve the page 5x's what it is now, which is the only way the page can become a DYK.  Also Cap will only have 5 days once they post the re-write to make it into a DYK.  It is very helpful for people to post here on talk, then Cap can include it in the re-write.  Hope this is okay with everyone.Sgerbic (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

while I'm working 'off-line' on this page I did change 'assistant' to 'associate' professor, this is the correct title according to Gorski and the SBM profile, the Wayne State profile is wrong. I will be looking into sending WS a message to correct this. Cap020570 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I did not see this post until just now and I have made many changes to the article. I have also added a notability tag since my searches of subscription news sources like High Beam yielded only two very minor mentions of the subject. So far I see no notability but look forward to other editors providing reliable sources here in the article. I also don't see the value of a new inexperience editor working off line on a new version of the article. This is not how WP works. We don't hold up progress while someone works on a project on their personal computer. If reliable sources are there fine, lets add them and their appropriate content as they become available. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 00:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new and meant that I was getting together links and information and working out what I wanted to say before I entered it into a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap020570 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC) And it's totally my bad that I let stuff sit for so long, this won't be happening again. :) Cap020570 (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Capo, thanks for your contributions. There are some formatting errors which I'm going to clean up. I understand it takes time to learn WP's formatting so I'm not faulting you for that but if you could please try to avoid adding duplicate info that would be helpful. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 14:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I had meant to remove the 'education' part since I felt that the 'professional background' was more filled out, you actually deleted that before I could remove the 'education' part. Cap020570 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's wrong and I've reverted your removal of the education section. I don't mind you adding content but you  are destroying the format of the article and I can't stand by while you do that. -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've spent a lot of time cleaning up the format of this article. I appreciate your addition of sourced content but do not reformat this article without discussion on the talk page. Please READ the article and if something is missing add it to the appropriate section being careful no to damage the work already done. -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 14:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I still have some information I want to add from interviews, and possibly a 'controversy' section when there was a group of people trying to get him fired from his position, but there is only blog posts about it, so I'm not sure. I think it could be relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cap020570 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

stub status
I updated the WikiProject Rational Skepticism here on the talk page, but at the bottom of the article is a medical stub. I would assume their requirements are similar to RS. Can that just be removed? Cap020570 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point I suspect it could be removed, with over 600 words of readable prose. EDIT: I have removed the Stub template. Nmillerche (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

wikiproject
Gorski is currently in the general 'biography' section, but would he be more relevant here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Science_and_academia Cap020570 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability
Per WP:ACADEMIC, the subject's notability is established by Criterion 1 and 4, having made significant impact in the field of oncology with publications that are heavily cited by other authors in the field (the subject's paper on blocking vascular endothelial growth factor stress responses has been cited in more than 700 other publications in this field, for instance). The subject has also been named director of a medical treatment center.

I suspect that if the original good-faith contributions of the editor who began this article had not relied heavily on blog citations, the subject's notability per WP:BIO would be less obscured, but per WP:ACADEMIC I am removing the notability tag. Nevertheless, I would like to see the reliance on blog sources reduced further, and look forward to what Cap020570 is able to add. I have supplemented the article with additional sources, and will assist in maintaining formatting as the article is improved. Keithbob, thanks for helping to clean up this article, and keeping the formatting manageable. Nmillerche (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I still dispute the subject's notability and I've replaced the tag. You are saying he meets criteria #1 and #4 of WP:PROF
 * 1 says: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * Where are the independent reliable sources that say that Gorski has made a "signficant impact" in his scholarly discipline?
 * 4 says: The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * So far I don't see even the slightest indication that Gorski has made a "a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." If you have independent sources that say this, please provide them. Thanks.-- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just curious if you've attempted to look at how many other researchers cite Gorski's published work on antitumor therapies, which are listed but underrepresented in this article? I'm attempting to assume good faith, especially after all the time you've put into this article, but it seems to me largely an effort to develop a rationale for its deletion. I apologize if I misunderstand, but if that is the case, developing material on the subject's research career would seem a more fruitful effort in my opinion. Thanks. Nmillerche (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please assume good faith. I have spent hours cleaning up after other editors, reformatting, improving citations etc. I've also added most of the secondary sources in the article including one citing Gorski's award. I am trying to create an article that meets WP guidelines.  What is it you are trying to do?  Meanwhile, is there something in WP:PROF that defines notabilty as the number of times a paper is cited? Sorry but I didn't see it.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 00:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My goal in this case is going to be to try and improve the article in a way that reflects the contributions that I think make the subject notable. The article as it was originally created seemed to be a grouping of blog sources, and tied more heavily to his non-professional activities, and that's fine for documenting those (the documenting, not the blog-reliance), as he's drawn both support and criticism on that front, and I think Cap did a lot to expand that.


 * I see better potential for this article on the research side, though I think we differ on that point. I probably didn't state myself well; I didn't mean to imply that shear number of citations of a paper equal the definition of notability, and I suspect you misread me on that. However, I think context and impact matter. Just having a list of publications doesn't communicate that impact on its own. I understand if your interest in this article is more... regulatory, and less about expanding on documentation of research contributions. What I am "trying to do" is improve the article while still meeting WP guidelines as I read them. Not identical, but (I hope) also not opposing. Nmillerche (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are saying that you want to develop the article further based on a neutral representation of reliable secondary sources as defined by WP:RS then I think we have the same goal.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Notablility part II: Sources
Furthermore the sources in the article show no significant notability for Gorski and the article appears to be a "vanity BLP" which relies primarily on Gorski's employers or websites with which he is a writer or editor. The article has only a few secondary sources and those secondary sources give him only a minor, one sentence mention. Here's a break down of the current sources:
 * 1) Wayne State Univ website—Gorski’s employer, unknown author, possibly written by Gorski
 * 2) BAK Cancer Institute website—Gorski’s employer, unknown author, possibly written by Gorski
 * 3) Respectul Insolence blog (cited in two places)—written by Gorski
 * 4) Science Based Medicine blog—Gorski is managing editor of this web site
 * 5) PR News—Press release from Gorski’s employer BAK Cancer Institute
 * 6) Daily News Egypt (cited twice)—Good source but only one sentence on Gorski
 * 7) Wayne State University website—Gorski’s employer
 * 8) BAK Cancer Institute website-- Gorski’s employer
 * 9) Wayne State University website-- Gorski’s employer
 * 10) Institute for Science in Medicine—Gorski is Founding Fellow and on Board of Directors
 * 11) University of Medicine and Dentristy of NJ— A mediocre secondary source reporting an award he recvd
 * 12) Science Based Medicine website—Gorski is managing editor of this web site
 * 13) YouTube video hosted by the James Randi Foundation—Video of Gorski at The Amazing Conf 2012
 * 14) For Good Reason—Interview a non-notable podcast website hosted by the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation
 * 15) WPRR 1680 AM Radio website— Interview of Gorski at a non-notable, 10,000 watt, local radio station
 * 16) Utne Reader—A reliable source but Gorski is mentioned in only a single sentence of this 12 page article. --(an “infiltration of quackademic medicine,” blogged David Gorski, a surgical oncologist at Wayne State University and one of the more prickly anti-alternative-medicine warriors, in despair).
 * --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 00:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This may support his notability. Gorski appeared in a symposium for The Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium Series of the McGill University: [http://www.mcgill.ca/science/events/trottier-symposium/2010/october18 Drs. Ben Goldacre, David Gorski and Michael Shermer on the threat of Pseudoscience]. The introductory information for this states his contributions to the Science Based Medicine Blog have a world wide following. This statement and his appearance in the Trottier Symposium seem to support notability and come from a reliable source. The event was reviewed in The McGill Daily. He was an invited speaker at Michigan State University's DO-PhD Seminar Program which aims to “to introduce DO-PhD Students to exceptional physician-scientists and translational research both from Michigan State university and from other distinguished academic institutions.” He was chosen to contribute his views to an article on Medscape about alternative medicine What to Do When a Patient Wants 'Alternative' Medicine.

The Institute for Science in Medicine has multiple Fellows who are notable or major players in notable organizations, it seems to me that being a Founding Fellow supports his notability.

The extent to which an author's articles are cited in other articles may not be spelled out in the WP:PROF guideline but it seems to meet the spirit and meaning of WP:PROF criteria 1. Articles citing the author's work meet WP's highest standard for independent reliable sources, they are peer reviewed journals. Citation in an article is a direct reference to the contribution of the original article, this is precisely what a citation is. The number of articles citing an author is a demonstration of the impact in the discipline. Note the criteria states, “broadly construed”. It would be going beyond broadly construed to pick apart the particular citations in each article, however to do so with 700 plus articles you would find the specific contributions and their significance. Please also see ACADEMIC.

It seems most of the references you have a problem with are acceptable per RS with the exception of item 5. I agree that additional secondary sources would be helpful. However once notability has been established through meeting the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC the issue is resolved. The remaining issue would be the quality of the article and its references.MrBill3 (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess their must be a Gorski fan club or something. I've never seen so many editors grabbing at straws to try and justify the notability of a non-notable surgeon who's hobby or sideline is bashing alternative medicine in his personal blog and at skeptic conferences. I hardly think a promotional brochure that is trying to hype the appearance of one of its guest speakers qualifies as an objective reliable source for establishing notability. Has he ever been on national TV? been the subject of an article in a science or medical magazine? or even in a skeptics magazine? featured in a book on cancer research? has he written any books on skeptics or cancer research that were published by an independent publishing house? These are things that might make him notable. I suggest we dig a bit deeper and see if we can find some sources like these. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Meantime, I've posted on the BLP noticeboard to get some wider input from editors who are experienced in BLP issues. All are welcome to participate in the discussion here.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess there must be a Gorski hate club or something. I've never seen an editor who grabs at straws to remove valid sources while relying on those self same resources elsewhere for his own pages. Go figure.Joolzzt (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm in the follow WP guidelines and policies club. I think we will find our common ground there. Cheers! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are all supposed to be in that club, but some of us seem to feel we don't need to justify our changes to others. Editors need to explain what they are doing, especially to people they call 'new' else how can they learn?  The 'new' person's page had proper citations etc that followed wiki rules and you haven't explained why you took them out, deleted sections etc etc etc.  Your comment 'non-notable surgeon who's hobby or sideline is bashing alternative medicine in his personal blog and at skeptic conferences' seems to confirm you have an extreme non-NPOV view and hints at a POV being behind your edits.  Perhaps the page should be left to editors who can update on him from a NPOV? Joolzzt (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's stick to article content and avoid the personal attacks please. Regarding sources I have already stated in the thread below: If there is a particular edit that you have an issue with, please provide a diff and I'd be happy to discuss it. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 17:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove any reliable sources except two cites to questionable source, Lanyrd.com, which was being used to support a sentence which was not disputed and which was already cited to a better source. I did this per WP:OVERCITE. If you think I've removed any other reliable sources besides those two, then please provide diffs to substantiate your assertion. What I did remove were gratuitous quotes by Gorski which violated WP:UNDUE and which used this BLP as a platform for advocacy.

Photos
Just a heads up that WP:IMAGE says that photos: a) should be in their relevant section, b)they should not begin a section on the left, and c) they should fit WITHIN that section. So the photo in the Publications section will need to be moved. Also, I agree with the editor who removed the so called "vacation photo" if others disagree, we can discuss it and gain a consensus.  Have a nice weekend everyone! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 20:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 05:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Page restructuring
From the looks of today's activity, it appears a large restructuring is still taking place at the moment, and that a large portion of the removed content that was reliably sourced came from articles and/or interviews tied to the subject's skeptical activism. If after the restructuring is complete reliable sources per WP:RS that are not actual BLP violations are still missing, then I'd suggest restoring them, as the subject is also known (among both his supporters and critics) for his skeptical activism.

The subject's research career, impacts of publications on the field of study, etc should still be expanded. I will attempt to contribute more about the subject's professional career, as well. The subject is heavily involved in various areas of skeptical activism, including what he believes to be medical quackery, but also branching into other areas of extraordinary claims, so I am also suggesting a separate section dedicated to "Skeptical activism," as these are separate from his career as a surgeon and oncology researcher. Nmillerche (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nmillerche, I didn't remove any reliable sources except two cites to questionable source, Lanyrd.com, which was being used to support a sentence which was not disputed and which was already cited to a better source. I did this per WP:OVERCITE.  If you think I've removed any other reliable sources besides those two, then please provide diffs to substantiate your assertion. What I did remove were gratuitous quotes by Gorski which violated WP:UNDUE and which used this BLP as a platform for advocacy. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 01:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand and concur with the WP:OVERCITE justification if the better source is sufficient and the Lanyrd.com is no longer needed. I was referring to the interview statement by Gorski, which would seem to be a reliable source regarding his own position on the ethics of placebos (if one were to consider a particular alternative treatment a placebo). Looking at the quote, though, I'm thinking it might be better used within the context of describing his advocacy activities, rather than being reproduced in its entirety. I don't think its inclusion went so far as to speak in Wikipedia's voice, but better context could be used.Nmillerche (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure what happened here. I would have expected to see some sort of explanation on the talk page before -all- my work was removed. Everything was sourced. If something was wrong why wasn't I at least told what to do to correct it? Cap020570 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Cap, I welcome your contributions but you are a somewhat inexperienced editor and there are many things which you appear to have not yet learned about WP policies and guidelines regarding format and content. That's fine, WP is a learning process for everyone, including me. Its a big place.  The changes I made today were all in accordance with WP policies such as WP:BOLD, WP:BLP,  WP:RS, WP:QUOTE, WP:IMAGE, WP:EL, WP:UNDUE and others. Most of these I have mentioned in my edit summaries. However, if you have a specific question I'd be happy to discuss and explain any of my edits here on the talk page. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 01:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been so many changes made in the last week or so that I am having trouble keeping up with everything. Can we slow down the pace of the edits and reach a consensus before more changes are made? Please? Allecher (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to re-introduce the section 'skepticism', which I had in at one point and which was removed. It seems like Gorski has the cancer MD/professor career going on and a separate skeptical project. The information that's currently regarding he skeptical contributions will have to be improved. Some of what remained is wrong.Cap020570 (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Cap, I don't have a particular objection to a section/subsection called "Skeptic" which discusses notable events in Gorskis career or hobby as a skeptic. But is should not be a section that espouses on Gorski's views. Rather it could/should list notable events such as keynote speaker at a national skeptics conference or founder of a skeptics society or something like that. And of course we need reliable secondary sources like newspapers and magazines. Brochures and event websites, which are primary sources and don't vouch for the notability of such an event. It should be reported reliable secondary sources. The main reason I removed that section title was because WP:IMAGE says that photos: a) should be in their relevant section, b)they should not begin a section on the left, and c) they should fit WITHIN that section.  So to make the photos fit I removed the skepticsm heading/subheading. As you add content please read WP:RS and WP:UNDUE if you haven't already as these are important guidelines on WP and the article is already in my opinion a fluff piece regardless of how the notability issue pans out. So please keep these things in mind as we develop the article together. Cheers! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 20:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keithbob, notability issue aside, what do you suggest to help the article to not be a fluff piece? I am aggregating citations and building a summary of research contributions from a university medical library, because it seems to me other people have the "Skeptic" section covered. However, there would seem to be plenty of notable critical reception regarding the subject's advocacy topics (Negative criticism of some the subject's oncological research is more direct in that other researchers simply won't cite or integrate that work into other research). Some of the subject's critical reception is clearly less notable than others, and I don't advocate a separate "Criticism" section as it would seem to go against WP:CRITS, but integrating notable criticism would, in my opinion, take steps to ensure the article does not become simply a platform for advocacy. Nmillerche (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nmillerche and thanks for your invitation to discuss. WP is about collaboration as you well know. I am hopeful that with the new sources that Mr. Bill has discovered the notability issue will be resolved. I haven't seen the sources yet but I am hopeful. Regarding the current list of sources the article relies heavily on sources from Gorski's employers or from blogs that he authors or is managing editor of. Likewise promoters of conferences are also primary sources with limited usage on WP. As you probably know, primary sources are defined as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved whether it be Gorski, his employers or the promoters of a conference. Primary sources can be used but they have limited usage on WP and articles. Also, WP:RS says Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. So its the undue weight being given to primary and low quality secondary sources that make the current article like a resume and rather fluffy. We could discuss more specific issues if you like but that's a start. Thanks for your civility and willingness to discuss and consider together. I look forward to working with you to develop the article further. Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 05:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've starting working on building up the skeptical content. There is additional work I'll still be adding, and setting up links to other WP pages. Cap020570 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Citations to support notability
Newspaper articles Journal articles that are highly cited Book Chapter
 * Cited by 949 (PubMed) or 777 (Google Scholar).
 * Cited by 118 (PubMed) or 208 (Google Scholar).
 * Cited by 128 (PubMed) or 549 (Google Scholar).
 * Cited by 143 (PubMed) or 224 (Google Scholar).

Gorski is cited in the following books

Patent

Inventors: Gorski, David H.; Walsh, Kenneth, Patent: Growth arrest homebox gene, Publication # USRE39219 E1 (Grant), Application # 09/755,320, Publication date; 01-08-2006, Filing date; 05-01-2001, Original assignee; Case Western University.

MrBill3 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * His H-Index appears to be about 19, which is generally fine for academic notability, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you MrBill for that listing. I'm hoping sources of that caliber will be the primary means by which the rest of the page is developed. I have expanded on the Career section, dropping one secondary source (Daily News Egypt) that wasn't terribly descriptive of the subject's work, and I suspect was initially included to cite a position title.
 * Keithbob, while I am optimistic that any remaining issues regarding the subject's notability have been resolved, I will take care not to prematurely remove any tags. I was a little unclear whether the matter at hand was the subject's actual notability or the subject's notability as reflected in the developing article. Nmillerche (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nmill, I need a few days to look over the information that Mr. Bill has presented. The four news sources presented at the top of the list are not very impressive since one is written by Gorski and the other three have only a one line mention. However I haven't check the sources below, but I'll look at them and see what they have to offer. I also need some time to go through the Citation Metrics  as the one metric I checked only yielded two results for Gorski.  I think we are moving in the right direction though and I thank Mr. Bill for all the time he has put in to assemble this information. Thanks for moving forward in a collaborative and patient manner. Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned here, I don't think you're using Web of Knowledge correctly, but I'm at a loss to figure out exactly where you went wrong. MastCell Talk 18:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What number of citations for a single article in the field of cancer research satisfies notability? A single article article has been cited 949 times per PubMed, 777 times per Google Scholar or 560 times per Web of Knowledge. How many articles with over 50 citations would satisfy notability? What H-index meets the requirement of notability? IRWolfie- stated Gorski's H-index was 19 and that met the notability criteria. Consensus should be fairly easily reached if those involved express some clear idea of what they feel meets the criteria.MrBill3 (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am finding myself quite behind on some real life responsibilities as well as various WP projects and promises. This is resulting in my not having sufficient time to give proper attention to this rather lengthy discussion and its corresponding data and analysis. I don't want to hold up the progress of the article, which seems to be getting a lot of attention now from several editors. So I leave this particular discussion and decision regarding the assessment of notability and the removal of the notability tag in the hands of other editors who are active here. I'll be back when I have time, and participate in future discussions and article improvements, as needed. Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 18:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The four news sources at the top of the list include an article by Gorski that features an adaptation of one of his blog entries into an article in a major news paper. Two of the others are NOT one line mentions: The USA Today article, “"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," Gorski says.“ and “Personal stories can be extremely misleading, says Gorski, managing editor at the blog Science-Based Medicine.“ and “A handful of success stories may show only a small part of the larger picture, Gorski says. For every few patients who testify that a treatment helped them, there could be dozens or even hundreds who got no benefit, or were even harmed.“ By my count that is four not one. The Star article, “David Gorski, an oncologist and controversial medical blogger who calls himself an “Apple fan-boy,” produced his own graphic-heavy analysis this week on Science-Based Medicine. Org. “His delay in treatment (might have) contributed to his ultimate demise. We don’t know that it did, which is one reason why we have to be very, very careful not to overstate the case.”” This is a citation of Gorski's blog followed by a quotation, not a one line mention.-MrBill3 (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Additional References


MrBill3 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

More citations
 * (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)
 * (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)
 * (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)
 * (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)
 * (This is journal article that cites Gorski's criticism of NCCAM)

I hope these additional references are helpful in establishing that Gorski is a notable skeptic blogger. Although the volume of text devoted to discussing Gorski may be limited this is frequently as he is cited and his blog entry is linked. Multiple citations describe his blog as thorough, accurate, insightful etc. His blog is cited in a peer reviewed article above. The relative level of WP:RS on the various references should be evaluated per the policy, of note are sites that have clearly stated editorial policy, the notability and authority of the authors on the specific subject.

MrBill3 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Restored oncological research
I have restored portions of the Research section, though I have left the copyediting intact. The material is not of "zero interest" to the reader of an article about an oncological researcher. The significance of the selective tumor cell destruction in order to reduce dosages is of substantial interest, and there are many methods by which researchers attempt to do this, so including information about tumor hypoxia is germane. Further, the modification of endothelial cell behavior (via miR or other means) is also a subject of significant import within the field, as regulating blood vessel development to developing tumors limits significantly increases the chances of remission.

That said, I understand the material can read a little dryly, and while I have some graduate background in biomaterials and material science, it may be helpful to improve the terms by which these topics are communicated for those new to the topic. I also have included wikilinks where appropriate, or where new terms may be introduced to the reader. I'm not averse to trimming material which has not been reliably sourced, but I do not see a rationale for truncating oncological research descriptions for not being interesting enough. Nmillerche (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed reference to Dr Gorski's self-written bio
Self-reporting does not make a reliable source, and sciencebasedmedicine.org is essentially a blog, definitely not a reliable source. It is a biased website with an agenda. His self-written bio page is especially unreliable for sourcing biographical information on Dr Gorski himself. I removed the two references to the blog, and facts that were solely sourced to it.

In other details, i have personal experience with Dr Gorski and that website, which although it cannot be added to the article, may be relevant as background information on his blog and the nature of his work. He banned me from commenting on his website, because i was citing research studies and making the case that there is a valid hypothesis that glyphosate may disrupt the human gut microbiome, which has not been tested sufficiently yet. I supported this statement with citations of research studies. He banned me from commenting very quickly and would not reinstate my ability to comment there. Therefore, there is a censorship bias in the comments to the blog, which i personally read as an agenda-driven pseudo-science blog, using the facade of rationalism to push an industry agenda. Therefore, i object to its use as a source to support any statement, especially any biomedical statement. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that my edit has been reverted in this diff. I had removed statements that used Gorski's blog as a source, because i do not find it reliable. The statement and sourcing that i found problematic was that of biographical information about the person, and also this statement:
 * "According to Gorski, in 2010 members of the anti-vaccine blog Age of Autism wrote to the board of directors at Wayne State University and asked that he be prevented from blogging."
 * I do not know anything about this allegation about "members of the anti-vaccine blog Age of Autism" and i find this statement with this sourcing to be problematic. It allows the blog to make a vague accusation, and then it is stated essentially as a fact in Wikipedia. Although the statement is attributed, its presence here is still problematic as it's echoing of a "he said / she said" personal accusation. Is there a reliable source for this information? And why is this relevant in this article anyway? What part of the story about this person is enhanced by this statement?


 * Well, i guess i don't really care. All it does anyway is to make it clear that the person is often enmeshed in some drama. SageRad (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, i haven't had any replies here, and i had the idea that if his blog is acceptable as a source about another group attempting to shut down a venue for speech, then it's also acceptable that a blog can source a counterpoint, that Dr Gorski has been known to ban people from commenting on his blog website "Science-Based Medicine" for presenting opposing viewpoints. SageRad (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did so, and then it was removed for not being sourced, so i wrote a statement to that effect on my blog and i sourced it to that. I hope the irony is recognized. SageRad (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Referencing your own blog isn't going to get far, and I reverted your edit for a number of reasons. Your central question, though, why is the letter relevant, needs to be answered. Unless this was covered in other sources, it does not appear notable enough to mention. Was Age of Autism successful in getting the engagement canceled? Did AoA cover their letter on their own site? (and one side note for future reference - new talk page sections are typically added at the bottom of the page)Dialectric (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dialectric. I cited my own blog statement to make the point that this is how the previous statement was sourced, and that it's substantially equivalent. I do wonder what the point of the inclusion of that statement in the article was, and i sense that it's probably a sort of propaganda to paint Gorski as a victim of attempted censorship. If that is relevant, then it seems relevant that he is a perpetrator of censorship as well, for he is. I am not lying in my statement that he banned me for presenting counter-evidence to his claims.
 * I will add new talk section on the bottom of pages from now on. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually think it may be relevant that a group tried to get his blogging stopped. I also think it's relevant that he claims to be a proponent of free speech and yet censors people from commenting in the forum for public commenting on his web-blog, based on whether their views oppose his own. I would call that hypocrisy. So i think that both are relevant. I can, of course, source the claim of his blocking people better. I can find a statement off of Wikipedia, in which several people testify that they were blocked by Gorski from commenting at "Science-Based Medicine" for discussing science. SageRad (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never seen Gorski stifle any legitimate scientific debate, though I have seen him shut down pseudoscientific claptrap such as loons promoting the refuted vaccine-autism link, other loons promoting child abuse under the guise of "autism biomed" and the like. XKCD 1357 applies. I have no idea what you wrote on SBM, or why you were banned, but the evidence I have seen in your edits leads me to believe that your judgment of the neutrality and scientific merit of your arguments is inaccurate. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There are probably a lot of things you've never seen, and there's the added dimension that when someone is banned, you do not see them anymore. I cited papers from journals and i made sense. Then i got pretty well attacked by resident skeptoid piranhas. Then i replied to them and he banned me. That happened. That's the truth. You may not believe the part about "i made sense" but i sure did. This isn't the place, perhaps, to have that dialogue, but you did open that topic with a slight. SageRad (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your version. I have seen a lot of people citing papers and making no sense whatsoever (Dana Ullman, for example). This, of course, is why we require reliable independent secondary sources for material of this kind. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At the very least this thread has been a learning experience. My interpretration of self-published was that it could be used to cite information about the "self" but not 3rd parties. My interpretation is confirmed here, but I must admit that it is not being applied with any consistency throughout WP because I've seen and edited articles where it was disallowed. --<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 09:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It largely depends on whether the information is controversial. If someone states that they are quitting their job because it requires them to fraudulently present global climate change as a reality, rather than being a fraud perpetrated by an evil cabal of green activists and climate scientists hungry for tenure, then we need independent sources to establish the context (otherwise we'd be representing an insane view without comment or correction). If, however, the statement is that cranks have tried to get an academic fired for promoting reality, then there's no real problem, the fact that cranks do this is well known and hardly controversial as a statement of fact (see Edzard Ernst's A Scientist In Wonderland for examples). Guy (Help!) 09:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Update
I have now taken the time to find out what SageRad is complaining about. Unsurprisingly, the "science" was actually anti-GMO activism, and the banning appears to have occurred only after he'd followed Gorski around numerous venues and refused to drop the stick. It was followed by the same behaviour from a number of apparent sockpuppets. The anti-GMO activism is consistent with SageRad's editing behaviour on Wikipedia. It is not uncommon for bloggers to block zealous agenda-driven posters whose agenda is only peripherally related to the purpose of the blog, and this is not controversial other than to those whose views are thus denied a prominent platform (that is, after all, the entire point of grandstanding).

It is not a surprise that no reliable sources have addressed this, because there is basically nothing to address. In an area where reasonable people can differ, it is very common for extreme partisans to become agitated when others refuse to accept their viewpoint as the sole valid view, and as far as I can tell that's exactly what happened here. I propose that we waste no further time on this. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

All of this section is very wrong, and also reflects some assumptions and detective work done against myself as a Wikipedia editor... and i do not think is admissible here. I think that this section is a violation of ethics of Wikipedia. I'm not going to get legalistic though. My saying it is enough.

For example, the use of the word "sock puppets" for people who care about things... that's really bad. The use of "science" in quotes demeans the use of actual science -- yes, science -- Jaworski (1972) for instance, which shows glyphosate inhibiting R japonicum by 80% at 10 uM concentration. This is science, not "science". Ernest Jaworski was a Monsanto scientist in the early development of the chemical.

As for calling me bad for "refusing to drop the stick" -- again, characterizing the dynamic as if i were the source of the problem and as if it's wrong to call out a tactic of banning a person and then commenting after they're banned to ridicule their arguments wrongly, when the person cannot respond to correct factual errors.

All this feels like inquisition-style tactics. All those who have a clear mind and two eyes should be able to see that. Those who are bought into a certain establishment self-limiting view of reality, though, may not see it. And no, i don't claim to know "the truth" -- but my mind is open to inquiry and i evaluate evidence, and i seek to lose bias in myself and to notice it in others.

This is getting to be like a "he said / she said" "yes you do! / no i don't!" thing. But that's the very thing i was trying to get OUT of Wikipedia by calling out the use of David Gorski's own blog to source a claim that he was a victim of attempted censorship. It's hypocrisy and self-asserted sourcing that doesn't belong in Wikipedia, for the same reasons people here don't want my claim in Wikipedia.

We need some other people without a stake in this, random people, to come in and take a broad view of the situation. We need some peer-review without bias here. And i'm really tired of being attacked like this and called names and accused of thoughtcrimes, etc. SageRad (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, this is Strawman City: "In an area where reasonable people can differ, it is very common for extreme partisans to become agitated when others refuse to accept their viewpoint as the sole valid view, and as far as I can tell that's exactly what happened here." So untrue, such a false characterization of me or what happened. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.) SageRad (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a fair comment, please calm down. Spumuq (talq) 11:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not uncalm, sir. And what comment are you referring to, and what reasoning makes you think that it's a fair comment, if it's the one i think you're referring to? Just saying "yes you are!" isn't much of an addition to a conversation. Honestly, i would rather be talking about hoes than getting name-called and insinuated upon all day long. SageRad (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Context. I think that any more of this and SageRad will be banned. We don't need this vendetta. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there you go. Self-admission of David Gorski banning me from "Science-Based Medicine", from a source other than my own blog. Simple.
 * As for "vendetta", it's not that. It's exposure of censorship of an apparently public forum, his "Science-based Medicine" blog project which is featured so prominently in this article about him. Don't take his word at face value. Why should you, any more than you take mine? SageRad (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What a pity you missed the salient point, which is that your characterisation of the reason for the ban is self-serving bullshit. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Closing of Dialogue
I think that Jytdog is being harmfully legalistic to the point of flying against common sense in the application of a Wikipedia guideline in his disappearing of my brief comment on this talk page in this diff twice, after my explanation of my objection to its initial removal. This feels like a memory hole attempt and an edit war and a closing of dialogue space in a talk page. The guideline in question states "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." This makes sense, of course. In this case, my "for the record" was a brief dissent to the content of the talk page header, and a brief provision of source material on the other topic discussed at length on this talk page. I don't see the issue. This is not using it as a platform, but a very brief provision of notes regarding the article project. i am not using this to grandstand. I wanted to leave the very basic "for the record" and be gone. The disappearance has made that difficult. Note that the header of the guideline in questions says specifically, "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I have other things to do. I hope this can just rest. SageRad (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The matter will rest as soon as you stop grandstanding, other editors are happy to continue editing. Spumuq (talq) 13:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not "grandstanding". I put a final couple facts here, to deny allegations/wrong statements against me, and was going. People couldn't leave that alone. That's what kept it going. And here again you couldn't leave it alone. I'll be gone when there is no standing allegation against me to which i disagree. SageRad (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Unilateral closing of dialogue
... has occurred on this page. Even closing of dialogue about closing of dialogue. At least it's in the hats above. SageRad (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You said «I have other things to do. I hope this can just rest.»
 * Do you want to reopen the dialogue, so you can have the last word again? The talk page is for improving the article. Spumuq (talq) 14:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism section
That section is so heavily weighted it takes away from the man's accomplishments. Having a link to an outside blog site is promotional, and that needs to go, too. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 02:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of sources so lots of coverage here; looks reasonably neutral. Nothing like the problems at Gabor B. Racz where you keep invoking this Gorski article. Alexbrn (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Twice the problems here. I'm going to recruit the copy edit team and get this mess cleaned up.  Please don't remove the tags.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 04:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The tags have gone, I suggest avoiding edit-warring them back in unless there's a consensus they're merited. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned this article to and he said he'd come review it, particularly the weak lede, the lack of any real biographical material, and the UNDUE Skeptic advocacy section with links to his off-Wiki blog and what is clearly full-blown promotion of an advocacy.  It doesn't matter if it's a good cause or not.  It's still an advocacy, therefore it is noncompliant with NPOV.  For you to not recognize the major issue with this article while criticizing a GA tells me maybe the problem could be WP:CIR.  I'll wait to hear from DGG before I request a team of copy editors or maybe a peer review.  You can either help and collaborate or you can be disruptive - your choice.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 04:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! the work of is pretty much guaranteed always to improve things. OTOH I don't think you're right that this article is in terrible shape (though it's not perfect) and your personalization continues a pattern of bad behaviour. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You revert and threaten and then say it's my bad behavior. It's laughable.  It will all even out and things will be just fine.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 04:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverting is a normal part of the editing process: see for example WP:BRD. However putting "For you to not recognize the major issue with this article while criticizing a GA tells me maybe the problem could be WP:CIR. I'll wait to hear from DGG before I request a team of copy editors or maybe a peer review.  You can either help and collaborate or you can be disruptive - your choice" (my bold) is not focussing on content and is unduly personal. That's the kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour which should be avoided. Alexbrn (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll get there today. But I am checking it as any other scientific biography. I'm not part of the GA project.  DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DGG. I think NPOV, WEIGHT, and SOAPBOX are what guide any article including BLPs.  While the BLP might be about a scientist or medical professional, it should still be written like a BLP - biographical material, not so much scientific.  You list what they are notable for but we don't delve into the science.  That is left for the topic of the science they are notable for - say cardiac surgery - while a BLP is (as I'm sure you know) about the person's life - career - motivations - education - and the like.  We don't promote advocacies in a BLP, and that is one of the concerns of this BLP.  It needs more biographical material and far less advocacy weighing down the sections. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No offence, but this seems extremely tit for tat by the sounds of it. If you are having a dispute on another page, don't disrupt this one to make a point. Firstly, we are of course going to link to his blog at the bottom of the page; that's just normal practice for a blogger (particularly where the blogging is remarked by secondary sources and is known for its quality). Secondly, his h-index of 20 and a 10-index of 24 is respectable but does not seem particularly to contribute to notablity, but the section on skepticism is well sourced and is a major reason why he is notable. We are of course going to give considerable weight in this article to his skepticism of bullshit. Second Quantization (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, after reading Talk:Gabor_B._Racz, I see you are being massively WP:POINTy here. Second Quantization (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you're a theoretical physicist and a skeptic so of course you're here to defend the skeptic section of Gorski and so it doesn't surprise me that you would criticize Racz. I'm a professional writer of biographical material and don't try to impose my will on medical editors writing about science or treatments or drugs. How about the same respect in return?  I just write about the person in a way to engage the average reader which is actually our job as editors here on WP.  The average person has no desire to read static science biographies.  That isn't what an encyclopedia does, it isn't what WP expects, and it certainly doesn't satisfy even the minimum criteria for GA.  Biographies are not science - just that simple.  For you to criticize the biography of man who is nearing 80 years old and who has accomplished things that have made significant changes in the way pain is managed is kind of out in left field.  Maybe by the time Gorski is nearing 80, he will have more credentials and accomplishments that we can add to this BLP - there may well be more out there right now but it's being suppressed because his skepticism is taking center stage.  That kind of raises a red flag.  Right now, his being a vocal skeptic is an advocacy no matter how we look at it, and while it deserves a paragraph or two, WP shouldn't be including links to his off-wiki blogs which promote his advocacy.  It certainly doesn't deserve an entire section that outweighs everything else the man has accomplished.  There may be some references to science and/or medicine in a BLP - the parts that made the person notable, of course - but you might want to read up on what WP:BLP requires.  The Racz article was reviewed by experienced reviewers and editors - it went through the gambit.  I have updated some of the MEDRS sources that Doc James and Ca2james brought to my attention.  I gave it a lot of thought and I agree that medical claims deserve quality sources.  That's basically all that was wrong with the BLP.  Listing credentials is not promotional, and neither is mentioning what made the man notable.  Biographies about doctors like Gabor Racz, Michael E. DeBakey, Ben Carson and the like are naturally going to seem promotional because they are great doctors.  It's not promotion - it's information.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't try an ad hominem on me, I'll just start getting nasty and do it right back.
 * "so it doesn't surprise me that you would criticize Racz" That's funny, because I didn't and because I know zero about him. Stop inventing things I never said. Read what I wrote. I criticised your massively pointy behaviour. I don't care about the Racz article. Stop using this article as a proxy for it. If you want to discuss that article, you are on the wrong talk page; because I don't.
 * "For you to criticize the biography of man who is ... Let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.
 * " I'm a professional writer of biographical material and don't try to impose my will on medical editors writing about science or treatments or drugs. How about the same respect in return?" Do not tell me not to edit an article and get over yourself. I'm going to just treat that question with the utter contempt it deserves. You're paid to edit biographical articles you say? That doesn't shock me ... Do you have any conflicts of interest you would like to declare? By the way Super Expert Paid Biographer In Chief, paragraphs help break up long prose (that will help with the great big wall of text you just wrote). Bear that in mind.
 * "Right now, his being a vocal skeptic is an advocacy no matter how we look at it, and while it deserves a paragraph or two, WP shouldn't be including links to his off-wiki blogs which promote his advocacy. " How about reading our actual policies rather than just talking a load of nonsense? His skepticism deserves space because that's where the sources put the emphasis. That's the core of WP:NPOV. Brush up on policy, stop dictating, and stop talking about Racz because it's irrelevant here. Second Quantization (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop the bullying, it doesn't impress me. Let's not forget your ad hominem came first with your snide remarks of  "No offence, but this seems extremely tit for tat" and  "don't disrupt this one to make a point." and "I see you are being massively WP:POINTy here."  In fact, just leave me alone.  I have nothing to say to you. I can see what your purpose is here and it is clearly ill-will toward me. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop the bullying?! You demanded that I stop editing because you claimed to be paid to write some biographies and you even stalked me to an unrelated page. You are the bully and I'm not taking it. If you want to disrupt this article, don't. Read the policies and guidelines. Second Quantization (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Meh - stop bullying. Stick to content. Go read WP:BLP. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)