User talk:Afiller

Image copyright problem with Image:Arctan3LR.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Arctan3LR.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Fig1 AGF ArctanLR.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Fig1 AGF ArctanLR.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

fMRI Reference
Thanks for you addition to the fMRI page, but could you put your addition in context in the section. I have tried to clean up that section a bit since your edit, but I'm not sure how to tie in diffusion MRI. Your paragraph seems to repeat much of the previous paragraph. Also, do you have a better reference? Your paper only briefly touches on the subject - maybe ref 25 from your paper? GyroMagician (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GyroMagician. A reference to a more focused and extensive paper has been added (Afiller (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks for your recent work on the fMRI page - it looks really good now. The only problem is...you've made my reading list longer - this is an interesting method, I want to learn more now ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

unpublished review
Hi Aaron -- I'm sorry, but there is no way that using an unreviewed preprint as a source accords with Wikipedia's policies. The paper itself looks nice, but it can't be used that way until it is published. Until then, I would have no problem with it being an "External link" or "Further reading" item in the Neuroimaging article -- it probably doesn't belong in Brain at that level. The rationale for all this is that the function of references in Wikipedia is to validate the statements in the article, nothing more, and an unreviewed manuscript can't do that. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is reviewed and accepted. It can be relisted as "Neurosurgical Focus (in press)"Afiller (talk)
 * I came to this talk after seeing the reference added and then reverted at Brain. Aside from the points discussed just above, I want to ask, gently, whether there might be an issue with WP:COI here. I'm making a guess, based on your user name and the name of the first author of the review. Perhaps, it might be better if you leave it for other editors to add the reference where appropriate. You could, of course, suggest it on articles' talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish - the problem comes in where you want to exclude everyone who works in a particular scientific field from writing about it - more or less the opposite of usual encyclopedia logic. In this case, the article in question is a review with over 150 references.Afiller (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying. It's not a question of excluding people who are experts in a particular area from writing about it. It's about people citing their own work (or linking to their own websites, or writing their own biographies, etc., etc.). I'd love to cite some of my own publications on pages to which they might relate, but I don't. I didn't write WP:COI. You could still ask on a talk page that someone else insert the ref, pointing out the validity of the cite as you see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish - I wrote an extensive review of the history of computed radiology. I am a neurosurgeon. I then cited the review when I added to history sections in this field. In any case, I have no interest in violating any guidelines. Please feel free to remove all of my contributions. I teach and write books (e.g. "Do You Really Need Back Surgery" for Oxford University Press) to inform the general public. However, fortunately, Wikipedia has a wealth of knowledgeable contributors (many of whom conceal who they are). I guess I'd better stick to academics. However, it was my impression that this issue was raised when I first started doing contributions. These were reviewed and approved by other editors and appreciation expressed. There was no warning that I was violating some rule and needed to stop writing. I think you are mis-stating the policy, but as I said, please feel free to remove everything I have written if that is what your fellow editors think is appropriate. We have no idea who you are other than that you like fish so there is no verifiable way to learn when you are violating WP:COI. At least I am honest and upfront about who I am.Afiller (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered at my talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I basically have to agree with Tryptofish. It would be a real shame to lose your expertise, but the way you've been distributing citations around gives the appearance that one of your goals is to draw attention to that paper, and that's a problem.  Let me note that for some of us, the reason we don't publicize our identities is precisely so that Wikipedia issues don't get mixed up with ego issues -- if we weren't aware that you are the author of that paper, we would be able to discuss the suitability of the citations in a much more straightforward way.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Looie496 - I think that if you have some other historical articles that cover CT, MRI and DTI then you could add those citations or replace mine. I thought it was a helpful summary - it certainly is not for sale so I'm not sure I see all aspects of the conflict. The reason why you write on Wikipedia is that you think you have something to say that will be informationally beneficial to readers - is that in itself a conflict since you are posting something that you wrote yourself with references that you selected. There is no way out of this cycle of interest other than to declare who is writing so that the reader can understand the conflicts on an open basis. For a wide variety of reasons, that is how it is done in academia.Afiller (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aaron, I got your message at my talk. Thanks so much for your understanding. I'm glad we got that cleared up, and I certainly understand where you're coming from. Here's to editing together happily in the future! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I looked at that other page, and I'm definitely not that "basic truth" guy! Sorry you had to deal with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.P.S.: Just fyi, one of the reasons I edit anonymously is that I try to combat POV at pages about animal rights groups, and I'd prefer they not know where I live. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion notification
A topic regarding your contributions to Wikipedia, specifically regarding Magnetic resonance neurography, has been raised here. Please feel free to add any comments you wish, or ignore it if you like. I wasn't the person who opened the topic, but I have replied to it stating that any potential conflict of interest you might have is outweighed by the importance of your contributions, and furthermore there is no evidence of any disruption of Wikipedia on your part (much the opposite in fact). Hopefully the discussion will end there but anything you wish to add to the discussion would be appreciated. --  At am a chat 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: MR Neurography and Diffusion MRI COI issue
I don't think the banners are appropriate, but I'm not going to remove them while there's a discussion still ongoing at the COI noticeboard. I've indicated as much on the COI noticeboard. I don't think it will be too damaging to leave the banners up for a couple of days. --  At am a chat 15:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama - Thanks for the explanation. It appears that one of the editors has already removed the banner. I also did a drawing, references and a "How it Works" section on the Spin Echo page - just to be cautious - because it relates to MRI, I will put the COI notice on that page as well.Afiller (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent discussion
Thanks for your comprehension. It is one of our "problems of success" that anything related to COI can get out of hand; but we should always stick to the line that discussion of articles is to improve them, rather than to comment on who is editing and why. I hope the business that brought Diffusion MRI over to the WikiProject discussion page for mathematics is now smoothed down in a reasonable fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:UK lab MRI Aaron Filler.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:UK lab MRI Aaron Filler.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Devolution
Hi Afiller. I understand you are the author of the book the Upright Ape. Now i have a friend who has read your book, and also many people on the internet have quoted from your book saying that your conclusions support devolution. That you are saying that the ape actually descended or devolved off man. There is a small discussion going on about your work on the devolution biology article at wikipedia. If you could, could you do a post on the devolution talk page article, there is a section near the bottom of the page were i have mentioned your work, please respond in that section. Please note i am not a scientist or an expert on evolution so if i have misrepresented your book please clear that up on the talk page, but as mentioned i have based what i have said on others who have actually read your book. Please see here: Talk:Devolution (biology) Liveintheforests (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aaron, just to say we've been having this discussion as there seems to have been some confusion about the distinction between Devolution (biology) and common descent. From my quick reading of your various descriptions of your 2007 proposal, Hominoidea could all have shared a common ancestor with an upright stance, which you would categorize as hominifom, or human. Given that you cite Goethe, Geoffroy and Owen, it's rather delightful that the proposal is one which Owen would have abhorred, and which would have delighted Darwin – have you come across the Great Hippocampus Question? Anyway, if you can clear up this discussion it will be very helpful. If possible, please point out published work which can be cited as need be to show your position on "devolution". Thanks for your very interesting concepts and your help with Wikipedia, . . dave souza, talk 23:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Brain CT scan.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brain CT scan.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Aaron G Filler.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:AG Filler RCS Award.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another one of your uploads, File:Brain CT scan.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributor
I advised you here to focus on content on the article talk page, and to be very careful about raising claims about other editor's possible COIs, especially in light of your own.

You went and head and wrote this on the article talk page. I have removed it.

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Diffusion MRI that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog,

Ok, thanks. I'm putting together all the various references and cites on an accessible page and will try to write up an explanation for your content reviewers.


 * Once again - I do like to explain the difference between science and invention:
 * In scientific advance the usual "story" is:
 * Everyone expected a particular result and we all knew we had to get there
 * A particularly well funded and well equipped lab got the grant.
 * They did the experiment everyone agreed needed to be done and now, in a dramatic advance, they have gotten the result everyone expected.
 * - This is attended by numerous publications before during and after and a following massive burst of citations by other as to what has just been accomplished


 * In invention, the "story" has to be completely different:
 * No one had any idea of what new was needed nor how to get there
 * Now suddenly, out the blue with no precedent - I have come up with a startling advance that no one expected and that no one really cares about just yet.
 * Soon everyone will realize that I've just transformed their field and this will make them not want to cite this as it makes their prior work seem off track


 * A good example is Hounsfield's invention of the CT scanner
 * All medical and scientific entities refused to fund the work as it was outlandish and unnecessary and no one was working in the area - he was funded by EMI the record company
 * Once he had it working he never really published about it.
 * He did finally write some articles but there are virtually no citations to any of them
 * He worked entirely alone, so he is the sole source of the information
 * He would probably be deleted from Wikipedia if he wrote about what he had done (no references, no sources, no one to confirm anything).
 * Yet he did totally transform medicine and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
 * He won the Nobel prize. Most radiologists know of him because a measurement of X-ray intensity - Hounsefield units - is named for him.

This dynamic - science vs invention - is part of the problem in this issue. The other problem is that I do many different things and have inventions in many areas - unlike most scientists who concentrate on one area for an entire career
 * My recent inventions are in using positrons, and in improving the accuracy of telomere replication. I have many pharamaceutical inventions. I have published books in a number of fields from computers to back surgery to patent law.
 * Sorry to waste your time with all this - but I do care about Wikipedia and am always sad to see history wiped off its pages because the analytic framework is encumbered with Wiki assumptions that don't always apply.

Afiller (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Aaron G. Filler, MD, PhD
 * Thanks but that note has nothing to do with the notice that I provided above.  Please focus on content on the article Talk page.   As to what you wrote, the WP:VERIFY policy is what it is - it is fundamental part of Wikipedia being able to function.  Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Userpage
Hi Afiiller. 2 things. First, this is nothing like what I requested which was "it would be useful if you added to the disclosure on your Userpage, a very high level (a sentence or two) discussion of NeuroGrafix' patent enforcement activities, which have included hospitals and universities as well as companies that sell MRI equipment, so that other editors are aware of the extent of your real world financial interest in this topic. " I had in mind something like: "NeuroGrafix has sued and continues to sue manufacturers of MRI equipment as well as users of MRI equipment like hospitals, universities, and imaging centers". Short, just facts.

Second, in general your Userpage is a CV and self-promotional, and this is explicitly disallowed by the WP:USERPAGE policy.

Please reduce the content to a brief bit about you. Something like this would be fine. (Note, no one other than you or an administrator should edit your Userpage. I just made the change to show you what it should like, and then immediately self-reverted). Please never edit another editor's Userpage)

Please note that if you don't do this, the page may simply be deleted. We give people time to self-correct. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You logged in and made a small change (diff) so you have seen this by now. I am nominating your userpage for deletion now. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)