User talk:Bcameron54

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I find useful:


 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text
 * IRC channel
 * Mailing lists
 * Current polls

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 03:33, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cause of prostate cancer
I'm responding to your message on my talkpage. Firstly, I find your style unpleasant and extremely patronising. I presume you are referring to my informed removal of the phrase "The actual cause, or etiology of prostate cancer is unknown, as for most cancers". My objections were actually for more reasons than just the ones I mentioned in the edit summary.

Firstly, it is a stylistic issue: it reflects an unwarranted ignorance. "Oh, boys, we don't know what causes cancer." That is a statement that is fully without merits.

Secondly - we actually know a lot about chromosomal damage, oncogenes, tumour-suppresion genes, gene silencing, cancer immunology. But do we know more about heart attacks? Just about as much. It's caused by plaque rupture and coronary thrombosis, leading to myocardial ischaemia. But what causes plaque rupture? Why does a plaque become unstable? Why are the plaques there in first place - what initiates atherosclerosis?

Instead of de facto forcing me to place back that mindless sentence please engage in a discussion that assumes good faith and remains civil. Thank you. JFW | T@lk  22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not offended by your directness. So, tell us about the actual cause, not about the pathogenesis of prostate cancer.  Or, is it not known? How would you phrase it?  It is worth stating the unknowns precisely and directly, so as not to mislead the reader or ourselves into thinking we know something that we don't, and to direct our thoughts towards important unknowns. Best regards, Bcameron54 23:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Does every condition have an "actual direct cause"? There are numerous conditions where I am confident that we will never find a single etiologic agent. These are simply multifactorial, and only a "final common pathway" explains the illness. In cancer, external and internal risk factors predispose to DNA damage, leading to a mitotic intracellular proteome and lack of normal inhibition. To attempt to capture this well-known paradigm as "etiology unknown" is a misrepresentation, at least in my view. Obviously there are important unknowns, but one should first outline the prevailing theory before pointing out the lacunae in that theory. JFW | T@lk  16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not share your confidence. Why should mice get a specific cancer clearly due to a specific etiology, but in the analogous human disease no specific etiology will ever be found because the disease has complex genetic pathogenesis and is "simply multifactorial".  To say the etiology is unknown is not to insist on a single cause.  Peptic ulcer disease (etiology: H. pylori; cofactor: acid - which used to be the cause, remember?; promotors: stress, steroids, NSAIDs), Kaposi's sarcoma (etiology: HHV-8, or KSHV; co-factor: immune deficiency of age or HIV), cancer of cervix (etiology: HPV; promotors: tobacco, other STI's), oropharyngeal and anal cancer (probable etiology: HPV, co-factors or promotors:EtOH and tobacco) and a string of others are past examples of what serendipitous or actively pursued research can produce in the way of etiology where complex pathogenesis had to suffice before.  If we disbelieve the existence of etiologies of common diseases of complex and unknown origin, we will unlikely look for them.  To deny these unknowns in favour of accepted but inadequate theories based only on existing knowledge is arbitrary, misleading and no more valid than confessing 'unknown'.  In articles on breast or prostate cancer, or atherosclerosis for that matter, it would be useful to state the prevailing theories of pathogenesis to which you have alluded, and then include the  point about unknown etiology, with its place in conceptual models of pathogenesis.  Pathogenesis which you describe is not etiology, but may be included in a 'chain of causation' beginning with etiology and ending with disease, including 'multiple hits' theories. It would be very easy to reference the unknown status of etiology, with concrete historical examples of discoveries, and a point to a good literature on causation in disease as well. Or, until someone makes a stub for a new article, we could settle for 'unknown.'  Best regards,  Bcameron54 03:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As an analogy there is the point-to-point analysis of critical incidents as performed by managers. Some incidents have one attributable cause (e.g. pilot was drunk, pressed wrong button & crashed plane), but the vast majority are due to failing compensatory mechanisms reinforcing each other, and no single event can justifiably be labeled as truly causative. I think this is a suitable analogy for the discussion we are having, which goes to the heart of many multifactorial conditions. Many forms on cancer will fall into that catagory where it will simply be impossible to pinpoint the initiating event. Cumulative DNA damage by ionising radiation, dietary carcinogens, radical oxygen species as part of chronic inflammation are all contributory causes to many malignancies.

Meanwhile, I'm a bit hesitant to label a disease: "CAUSE - UNKNOWN" because the reader will make the same "mistake" as me, namely to confuse cause with mechanism. They will get the impression the subject has not been studied well enough. JFW | T@lk  16:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Dr Wolff - Here is an immediately accessible reference from a credible source (only the latest of very many), which I believe lives up to Wikipedia policies on verifiability. It supports the reasonable statement that the etiology of prostate cancer is unknown, that pathogenesis is distinct and complex (but inextricably intertwined if you wish),  and that there are needs for much further study.  With your blessing, I may compose a paragraph on etiology for your approval, then to add to the article on prostate cancer.  Thank you for your input.

Frontiers in Bioscience 11, 1388-1413, May 1, 2006

Prostate cancer epidemiology

Ann W. Hsing 1 and Anand P. Chokkalingam 2

1 Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20852-7234, 2 School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, 94720-7380

ABSTRACT

Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer among men in most western populations, and it is the second leading cause of cancer death among U.S. men. Despite its high morbidity, the etiology of prostate cancer remains largely unknown. Advancing age, race, and a family history of prostate cancer are the only established risk factors. Many putative risk factors, including androgens, diet, physical activity, sexual factors, inflammation, and obesity, have been implicated, but their roles in prostate cancer etiology remain unclear. It is estimated that as much as 42% of the risk of prostate cancer may be accounted for by genetic influences, including individual and combined effects of rare, highly penetrant genes, more common weakly penetrant genes, and genes acting in concert with each other. Numerous genetic variants in the androgen biosynthesis/metabolism, carcinogen metabolism, DNA repair, and chronic inflammation pathways, have been explored, but the results are largely inconclusive. '''The pathogenesis of prostate cancer likely involves interplay between environmental and genetic factors. To unravel these complex relationships, large well-designed interdisciplinary epidemiologic studies are needed'''. With newly available molecular tools, a new generation of large-scale multidisciplinary population-based studies is beginning to investigate gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. Results of these studies may lead to better detection, treatment, and, ultimately, prevention of prostate cancer. http://www.bioscience.org/2006/v11/af/1891/fulltext.htm

Best regards, Bcameron54 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the abstract. If you insist on mentioning that the etiology of prostate cancer is unknown, I will not object. JFW | T@lk  21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the way it looks now. Perhaps this kind of discussion is best conducted on the article's talk page, so other editors can offer their opinion. JFW | T@lk  12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your update to Jiffy
I just wanted you to know that I mean no offense, but have removed your addition to this page. I believe that the dab pages are only supposed to contain links to the other articles. The note about 0.01 seconds can be found at the Jiffy (time) article which is linked on the page. Regards. --Brian G (Talk) 03:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but I recall no update by me. Maybe another? Bcameron54 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

changed my password. thx. Bcameron54 00:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Prostitution
I reverted your last addition to Prostitution simply because the nature of the addition requires it be added with its reference work. However, the addition is not just appropriate but a necessary part of the text of a good article about prosititution, so please simply source and add it back. Good work. Thanks. KP Botany 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I know this is a sensitive area.  We might also consider deleting the unreferenced (and false) statements, then. Bcameron54 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is deeply problematic, but is well-guarded by the folks who want to keep the picture of the German photographer because, and oh is this not PC of me, I assume it's their fantasy view of what a prostitute looks like. There is a lot that need deleted from the article, but come armed with excellent sources and neutral tone or you won't get anywhere.  You might not, even if you are well-armed.  It's a bad article.  KP Botany 22:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks. that's funny. Bcameron54 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It takes all kinds. KP Botany 22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Get the references up with the content, though! And good luck.  KP Botany 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Berlin-Bagdad Railway
When will you be able to make the edit you promised on July 22 to the origins of World War I covering the Berlin-Bagdad Railway? This edit is required to remove the "unbalanced" symbol from the article.

Werchovsky 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the gentle reminder. I have been thinking about it, and I will get to it.  I hope it will not be removed again and again as it has in the past, if I get the consensus of opinions and 'permissions' of the serial removers right this time. Bcameron54 22:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message regarding the new book on the Berlin-Bagdad Railway. I have not had much time to edit for the last couple years, so I only defend the Assassination of Franz Ferdinand article.  I just looked on as the July Crisis section of "Origins of WW1" and the July Ultimatum article were merged into a new July Crisis article based on Fischer and Fromkin and I grow more and more depressed as the actual diplomatic timeline gets submersed in discussions of the evil motives and rants of this or that German official.  The article is so important and yet so bad it cannot be fixed.  At least the Causes article is in better shape.Werchovsky (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:mulroney
The policy the edit violates is neutral point of view. You can't claim that his attempt at constitutional reform was a "dramatic failure" or that it's what he's remembered for, without citing a reliable source. You can, however, state that someone notable claimed that it was a dramatic failure, as long as you have a reference to back it up. ... disco spinster   talk  18:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Brickley Engine
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Brickley Engine, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Non-notable invention; fails WP:Crystal (should increase)

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Blowdart | talk 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —  Jeff G. ツ  04:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

grammar and fluency
MAD: try 'mutually assured destruction' vs 'assured mutual destruction' - which do you prefer? BCameron54 4:43 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * I'm placing this here, as you left a comment on my user page rather than my talk page. The question you ask is out of context. It should be mutual(ly) assured destruction (MAD), but having it the other way emphasizes the phrase. So, basically, it depends. It's not absolute. Hires an editor (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Sedatephobia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sedatephobia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sedatephobia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Ignatzmicetalkcontribs 00:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decision Points, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Dowling. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2015 (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) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aneurin Bevan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diapason ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Aneurin_Bevan check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Aneurin_Bevan?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature
You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.  (It might already be empty.)
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

done thx. BCameron54 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod fishery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanata.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mac Harb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nancy Smith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)