User talk:Cryobiologist

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! karmafist 22:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks
Good edit. -- Cyde Weys 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Requet for help
Could you add something to the cryonics page about any research you know of on things (social, political, psychological, etc.) involved in the acceptance or rejection of cryonics? I hadn't realized that any research existed. Thank you.Cecelia Hensley 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For now I have added a link to the most well-known study of this nature to the bottom of the External Links section. Thanks for the suggestion. Cryobiologist 07:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Another assist?
Thank you very much for your help, Cryobiologist, against the attacks by Freezer Man and his family of sock puppets. User:NamfFohyr has made some edits to the Ben Best page which are not attacks, but which I believe detract from the "cryonics education" potential of that page: Talk:Ben_Best If you agree, I would appreciate your help in rectifying matters. If not, that's fine. You have helped me a great deal already. Thanks again for that. --Ben Best 07:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll fix the cryonics FAQ discussion because your extensive cryonics FAQ is part of what makes you publicly significant. While the Google rankings of your other writings are a matter of objective fact, I'm not as sure it's enclycopedic.  So I think I'll stay out of that one.Cryobiologist 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for your help. --Ben Best 23:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of sock puppetry on the Ben Best page
As someone who has edited the Ben Best page recently, you may have been aware of the allegations of sock puppetry. As this has continued for six weeks now, I have started the appropriate Wikipedia handling process. If you wish to make a contribution, please go to Suspected sock puppets/CRANdieter and add your views to the Comments section. Nunquam Dormio 13:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Work on death article
Thanks for your work on the introduction, it looks a lot better now, especially with the references. There's still a lot of material missing as you've probably seen on the to do list, any more help you can provide is greatly appreciated. Once the majority of the issues are there it should be easier to write a larger lead section, something that covers the whole article in around 3 paragraphs or so. Richard001 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll continue to chip away at it as time permits. Cryobiologist 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to have you on board. Do you think the medical defintion section could do with it's own article? It's rather large and there doesn't seem to be anywhere else to place it. Perhaps a full article on the medical aspects would be more appropriate? Richard001 07:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm planning to do some work on that. There can be no article on death that doesn't deal with the definition issue in a serious way. Let's see how it shakes out. I'll keep size in mind. Cryobiologist 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pdf file of Fluorinert physical properties tables
Do you still have that pdf file of the physical properties tables for Fluorinert from the printed product literature? I'll watch your talk page, so please reply here. Thanks. - Neparis (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't recall posting that I had such a file. If I ever come across this information, for what article is it of interest? Cryobiologist (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Death Acculumating Damage
You mention on the death article discussion page, that the brain accumulates damage during a cardiac arrest/code blue/where there is no blood pressure, but I'm just curious what you mean, by accumulating damage do you mean neurons dying? Once the membrane is burst and the cytoplasm leaks out isn't that the end of the cell? How could technology repair that? The snare (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as death of people is a process, cell death is also a process. There is a long cascade of deleterious processes that occur when cells are deprived of oxygen and nutrients, beginning with relatively simple things like abnormal ion concentrations. Cell lysis is waaaaay down the tracks, hours or even days later. Cryobiologist (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jerry Leaf


The article Jerry Leaf has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Bio with literally no non-company sources; no evidence of verifiable third-party notability in ten years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cryonics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viability. 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) 11:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Open letter formal dispute resolution
I've opened a formal dispute on this topic, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Cryonics.23Analysis_of_Wikipedia_policy_in_context_of_the_.22Scientists_Open_Letter_on_Cryonics.22

There is a section for you (personally as an involved editor) to have your say in the dispute. If you know any other editors who may be sympathetic (or even respectful) of cryonicists, do ask them to chime in on the talk page. I'm currently getting killed (metaphorically) by the logic that "Cryonics is crazy, and won't work. So none of the wikipedia policies apply to this content. It should not be included because it is crazy.". -- Nome77 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia
Hi Cryobiologist. I see you have been around WP a long long time! I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia along with my regular editing in health and medicine. Based on your contribs you are pretty much of a single purpose editor. In case you are not aware of COI issues, and the change to the Terms of Use that happened in June 2014, I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Cryobiologist. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with companies or societies in cryonics field? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, would you please disclose it? Thanks very much, and please pardon the question, but COI is something the community has been working to address with more care over the last year or two. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * pasting response from Cryobiologist here, that was left on my Talk page here, to keep thread together
 * On my User talk page, you wrote:




 * I am not a staff member of any cryonics company, nor have I edited any articles of companies relating to cryonics since 2007. Nevertheless I obviously have knowledge of and interest in the subject from my edit history. More broadly, I have expertise in cryobiology, cryonics, and medicine, having performed mainstream journal peer review services in all three subject areas. I sometimes share my expertise with cryonics practitioners, for which I receive no direct financial compensation. My day job is mainstream science, not cryonics. Beyond that, it is impossible for me to disclose anymore without revealing my identity, which would have adverse career consequences per Section 2.04 of the Society for Cryobiology bylaws:




 * You will have to tell me whether given these somewhat oppressive circumstances, it would be sufficient to put the above disclosures on my User Page to continue editing articles about cryonics topics. If not, I guess I'll have to retire. I think that would be unfortunate given that good articles on Wikipedia are the result of editors with both knowledge and passion for subject matter. There are very few people in a position to write knowledgeably about cryonics, and fewer still who are able and willing to work and play well with the community and rules of Wikipedia. This leaves the cryonics page subject to drive-by edits of people who want to say they saw cryonics on their favorite TV show, shills who want to promote particular cryonics organizations, and especially cryonics enthusiasts who waste everyone's time by making poor POV edits that must be reverted. During the last year in particular, there has been much more content reversion than development, shrinking the article dramatically. Informed NPOV content development is needed. Speaking of reversion, after rebuilding some content in recent weeks with little complaint after a long period of non-involvement, I came to your attention today because of a dispute resolution initiated by an overzealous cryonics enthusiast whose POV content I reverted. So if my editing must end because my proposed COI disclosure is deemed insufficient, it will ironically have been precipitated by an action that will leave a three-day-old pro-cryonics POV editor standing and decade-old editor and subject matter expert who defended NPOV, fallen. In your adjudication of Wikipedia policy in this case, I humbly ask that you be a court of equity. Cryobiologist (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your gracious reply.  Two things - the first one is that having a COI in Wikipedia isn't fatal - there are editors who work in WP where they have a COI who add a lot of value.  What we ask such editors to do is simply a) declare their COI and b) instead of editing directly, proposed changes on the Talk page of the relevant articles. In other words (use a form of "peer review" as that concept functions here in this odd place, where you can publish without any intervening journal or RW editor).  So even if you had a COI there would be no need to retire.
 * That said, from what I can gather, you have no COI around cryonics. You are an WP:EXPERT (which I commend to you, if you haven't read it) and if  you haven't read it I also commend Conflicts of interest (medicine) which deals with COI and advocacy in Wikipedia.
 * COI is just a subset of the broader problem of advocacy in WP and I do ask you to be aware of advocacy in your own editing.   As you noted, we get people in WP who come and - in the cryonics space and others- have strong preformed notions about the field, and add non-neutral, badly sourced or unsourced content to the related articles.  I hear you, that you spend a lot of effort keeping content attacking cryonics out of WP.  Please do be aware of your own points of view as well.   If you haven't read them, I also commend the essays WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY, and that you check your own behavior against the list of behaviors that advocates tend to fall into here (which I do on a regular basis, myself!)
 * Since everything starts with sources in Wikipedia, I also recommend that you do everything you can in your own editing to raise source quality and to urge others to do the same. Applying WP:MEDRS for any content about health, helps with raising source quality.
 * Thanks again for tolerating me and for your gracious reply, and happy editing. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
Hi Cryobiologist. I just want to make sure you are aware of the discretionary sanctions that are in place with regard to pseudoscience in Wikipedia.

Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning
This notice to a single editor appears to be canvassing. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:David Tornheim, get a life. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was following the prompts and instructions that came up when I clicked "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page, the last one of which was to provide courtesy notices to editors of the nominated article if understood correctly. I therefore posted notes on the talk pages of the last two significant contributors to the article to advise them of the nomination. I've been around Wikipedia awhile, but am nevertheless an inexperienced editor. I can't remember the last time I nominated a page for deletion, so if I did something incorrectly please explain so I can do it correctly in the future. Cryobiologist (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)