User talk:Ikkyu2/Archive 3

Glyconutrient
Editors have held a debate on my talk page, failing to attribute their work, editing my own contributions to the conversation, and introducing broken tags that cause part of the text not to be displayed. I suggest ignoring this section. - ikkyu2 ( talk ) 04:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Nope. The reason is that this kind of language violates a Wikipedia policy: no self-references. Referring to parts of articles as "irrefutable facts" and "misstatements" violates another policy: WP:NPOV. Readers don't need to be instructed that they can decide for themselves. They already know that. What readers of this article are learning when they see this kind of text is: A prior editor of the article didn't understand how things are done around here. A prior editor of the article, despite being in possession of "irrefutable facts," can't spell "disapproves." A prior editor of the article - I'm talking about you - is publically embarrassing himself."
 * No such self-reference policy exists. It says "avoid".  Both the word "policy" rather than an absolute like "rule", and "avoid" rather than "do not" means that your statement above is factually incorrect.  One would think that a board certified surgeon was not functionally illiterate.  You can pick out one typo and tell me I can't spell?  Grow up.  It is that type of weasel behaviour that is "out of bounds" as you put it.  And since you call me son, presumptious in the least, let me return the favour grandpa.  The reason I took such an "extreme" approach was outlined in my original discussion comments.  You ignored that.  You also ignored the very valid point that I made that at most it potentially damages my own arguments.  You again seem to agree insisting I am embarrassing myself.  Well, I'm not embarrassed, and believe me, I embarrass easily.  So don't worry about it.  Gee, I sure do hope I haven't made any more typos.

So give it a rest, cool it a while. Here's a tip: You're nowhere near the bounds of acceptable Wikipedia behavior in consensus editing. You're way out of bounds. I've been trying to be neutral on this article, but let me share my own point of view with you: I'm a board-certified American physician and I'm well aware of the harm and damage done by quack remedies. I bet I'm even more aware of the heartache and grief, the financial damage, the shattered hopes caused by this kind of fraudulent nonsense than you are, son.


 * I hope you are. I wish I could go along to get along.  That option was taken when mister anonymous (the one who begged your help below) decided that despite not knowing a lick about the topic, that deletion was abhorrent.  I have also already pointed out the single most salient point:  EVERYTHING so far submitted as "glyconutrient" has been "glycobiology".  I suggested we restart with Glycans and Disease or some such and outline in detail everything that is valid.  The quack crowd insists on labeling it glyconutrient.  Please respond to this.  Explain to me why that should be allowed?  Show that "glyconutrient" is a valid term.  You talk about consensus.  Not once have you or ANYONE else responded to one fact I have presented in the article.  You simply deleted them and started anew.  How is that consensus?  At the very least, by your own criteria that you claim I am not following, my facts should have remained.  As for being banned for vandalism.  Nice try.  Go ahead and talk to an administrator.  Have them contact me.  FACTS are not vandalism.  I pointed out that I use that term because almost everything I listed on the article could be found UNREFERENCED in a glycobiology textbook.  I also stated my willingness to go further and continue until everything was completely referenced.


 * You now have the article back to a point where there are perhaps two or three lines, that are factual. Bravo.  If you're not an expert in "glyconutrition" or glycobiology, how is it you decided what was fact and what was not?  Why is nothing referenced (unlike my previous edits)?  You want to help me fix this article?  Then stop ASSUMING that what you now have up there is anything other than bits and pieces plagiarised from MLM websites.


 * Finally, while I do hold the MLM concerns in extreme contempt. That is not why I am here.  It is a convenient argument of Mister anonymous to colour my motivations.  You want a productive "consensus" based approach to this article?  Fine.  Don't delete facts (especially referenced facts) and replace them with reworked fabrications.  (Stauffenberg 16:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC))


 * I'm a little confused why you are insisting on putting glycobiology facts into an article on glyconutrients. Glycobiology facts belong under 'glycobiology'.   Would you go to Spotted dog, blank the article, fill it with uncontrovertible facts about glycobiology, and then claim that the article was a poor article because the only facts in the article were glycobiology?


 * If someone sends me a spam saying 'Buy Glyconutrients online- they cure cancer', and I go to wikipedia to look up glyconutrient, do I want an exposition of fucosyl and N-acetyl-glucose and mannosidyl ad nauseam? No; I'd look under 'glycobiology' or 'proteoglycan' for that.   I want to see:

"'Glyconutrients' are a term used to market plant extractives, such as sea egg and blarney kelp extracts. Some sources claiam that Glyconutrients prevent cancer. However, a double-blinded clinical trial published in the 1999 Journal of Incontrovertible Results proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that glyconutrients show no benefit over candling, prayer circles, and whistling alone."

Then I know what's what. - ikkyu2 ( talk ) 00:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is also posted at the AfD page of the above article.
 * In defense of Bobby1011, he actually posted a note on my talk page explaining to me why deleting this article is a disservice to the community. He qualified it using the same logic that you are using now, and probably closed/redirected when he saw the information was already available at another article. Don't be too harsh on him; though he might have acted prematurely, it was probably in good faith. Although I disagree with the article, I am changing my vote to a conditional keep provided that it gets overhauled.

Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks for reopening the AfD; I have mulled over my decision and come to the conclusion that I made the wrong choice. Isopropyl 06:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got a problem situation at Glyconutrients.  Stauffenberg is locked in a tirade about the article's subject and history with a multilevel marketing (mlm) company, their much questioned claims, 8 missing / ess'l sugars, and their extended group, even though I have pretty much agreed about the questionable monosaccharides claim as at least secondary reactions and an unproven hypothesis. He is nakedly reverting and deleting without any evidence of thought, just shear rage.  One might mistake my position initially, where because of the "lynching's " time problem (page already prematurely blanked), I deflated his "absolute" stmts with simple counterexamples rather than pinpoint negative stmts about the mlm (even then I foreshadowed the short chain fatty acids with the lactulose example to tech/med with some carbohydrate b/g). I think my technical b/g discussion at talk of the mlm's claim is already viewed unhappily by the mlm (obs'd on another online forum).  Anyone with some technical b/g who reads my responses (and also newbie Duane's, last Censorship discussion at talk), would realize that I am likely to have a conflict with the mlm as a "debunker". I am pointing out the fate of most (90+~100%) polysaccharide fiber is fermentation to short chain fatty acids as one conventional science basis to their benefits, not massive hydrolysis to monosaccharides, as well as other more recent literature (an interesting individual has scattered a lot of specific refs on another forum, offers more, across a year).


 * The "8 ess'l sugars" hypothesis and the dominant company's marketing methods are highly controversial to say the least. However the "glyconutrient" formulations, their real scientific basis, and the practical benefit is an entirely different matter to others with technical b/g watching the literature. The "8 essential sugars" hypothesis he is unreasonably screaming about, threatening, trampling Wiki policies, is already a sideshow, if not a dead horse. I am hoping to attract the efforts of a newbie, independent professional who has something significant to add with conventional scientifc documentation and refs to offer here and sort out the mess. Good luck with this kind of rude nonsense. Thank you for your patient attention and efforts here. --66.58.130.26 00:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts, on the links portion.--66.58.130.26 00:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Would you please get a Wikipedia login?" Ok, per your request I've registered (formerly known as 66.58.130.26) and edited last comments. --I&#39;clast 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This 2001 QW link or, possibly one of these QW links,  seem like a more appropriate QW link for GN.  It might require positioning verbiage for the five years and specific corp criticism.

--I&#39;clast 05:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

pov, adv'g spam
Looks like the Mannatech salesmen are back - personal site links, reverts, seriously conterfactual POV, various IP but I suspect only 1 or 2 authors. We both are losing time and I am not very admin saavy. Just let me know. --I&#39;clast 22:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Andrew Allaby (2nd nomination)
You are correct. I have explained my actions at the link above. — Feb. 27, '06 [09:34] 

Talk:Terri Schiavo
Could you please look at the Terri Schiavo article's current state? I am a banned user and I see that thet are about to fold back into the over-sized main article all the bulky medical details that I, as Pinktulip, refactored out about a month ago. All the three peer reviews and the failed FA attempt had a common theme: article too big. Surely, as an American, you are aware that Schiavo Importance was not about her medical details but about the legal issues. All one has to do is look at Bill Frist to realize how tempting it is to try and form one's own diagnosis about her, but you realize how inappropriate it is to do so. Please at least consider voting about it. The current set of voters have done little besides revert the work of us Americans for the past six months.

Could you also take a look at this organization of that article and consider voting at Takl:Terri Schiavo about the change that these non-American pro-life people are contemplating? I feel strongly that the Importance of the Terrir Schiavo stroy is legal, just like the Elizabeth Morgan article, which I wrote. There are significant parallels and I feel it could be a useful article to imform both left and right about the drawbacks of legislative intervention in our Democracy.

Would you also please encourage User:Jnc to return more fully to W? He was very disappointed when he needed our help.

BTW: I discouraged Nikki Craft from calling herself a "researcher" but to no avail. AWM -- 67.127.191.33 12:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I have no wish to clean out Wikipedia's clogged toilet. - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 15:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize that this is scut work, but there is already so little here at Wikipedia that is genuinely Important. I am glad that you are willing to offer your expertise in your speciality.   Thanks for your time. (AWM, note: most likely, Olympia's days are numbered) -- OlympiaDiego 22:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Seizure and Epilepsy
I'd like to see these two articles improved and expanded. Seizure is pretty stubby and doesn't contain much that isn't currently in Epilepsy. The latter is too long (as one article) and unwieldy. They need more than just a few corrections and tidy-ups. It would involve re-writing some bits, budding some sections into their own articles, etc, etc. I'm very keen that there are top-quality references and frequent citations of sources of information – both articles are embarrassingly weak on this area. I made some comments way back in September last year in Talk:Seizure and recently in Talk:Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures about some article renaming and moving of content.

What are your feelings about working on these articles?


 * 1) Thanks for the reminder ("My area of expertise is epilepsy and seizures, and I'm looking to improve Wikipedia's coverage of these topics in the future."). I'll get on with it straight away.
 * 2) I'm totally disillusioned about creating and working on articles in this area and have found some other aspects of Wikipedia that give me more pleasure.
 * 3) I just don't have the time, but am willing to help a bit, give advice, correct mistakes, etc.
 * 4) I'd prefer to work on lower-traffic articles related to these (such as a particular syndrome or seizure type).
 * 5) None/some of the above.

I don't want to see these articles stagnate in their current form but I also don't want to suffer the wrath of Ikkyu2. I'd really rather not work alone on this, especially since it could be so much better with your input. --Colin 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. #3 is fine. I'd appreciate some feedback on the comments in Talk:Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures regarding article renaming and moving bits around. You can write that in the talk page if you want, so others get a chance to view/comment.

I've got another question. The ILAE Proposed Seizure Types is quite different to the 1981 version. It would appear that virtually all sources I've found stick with the 1981 classification. Is this just inertia, is the new proposal still gestating or do people hate it? I've read their comments in the overview. I guess that even if the new classification is better, Wikipedia needs to additionally use the old terms since that's what everyone is reading/saying for now. Cheers, --Colin 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

DRV
Oh, I forgot to update the list at the bottom of the page. It's a very tedious copy-paste of my edit summaries which I intend as my brief closure 'statement'. You can do it yourself if you like; noone will object to you listing the outcomes. No, they're not listed anywhere else. -Splash talk 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I updated the list now. -Splash talk 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Space Dogged/Feud for Sale
Hehe, probably someone trying to nominate the article again, not realising that they need to create a new AFD subpage. Thanks for catching it! —Kirill Lok s hin 14:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Cat bird
Hey! Thanks for your comments re Articles for deletion/Catbird seat. I did look at some of the discussion on WP:WINAD and noted that there is still a lot of division concerning this. Hence, my "wouldn't it be easier to eliminate" comment. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for the insight! James084 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

AFD Discussion
Regarding the article on CybOrgasMatrix, your vote was for deletion based on non-notability and the view that it was an advertisement. I don't know if you are watching the article or the AFD discussion at Articles_for_deletion/CybOrgasMatrix, but the article was re-written, due in part to your input. Thank you. The word count was reduced by 1/3, and intensifiers were removed. You may attribute that to an abundance of zeal for the invention, and that has no place here. The edited article is more consistent with NPOV standards on that account. Since the review will be closing soon, your opinion with regard to the new Adjective and Adverb Lite version would be helpful.

With regard to notability, the discussion page links to a 15-second video clip that speaks to that issue (you have to scroll down the Keep entry to find the link). If you are moved to watch it, the 2 things that make the invention notable should be apparent. I can't think of a more effective way to communicate the distinction short of seeing and touching the thing yourself.

Alternatively, it has been suggested that the article be merged with Sex doll. After due consideration of the above, your views on this would be appreciated. If you ARE watching the discussion, I apologize. Please feel free to blank this. --Esoterik1 07:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

List of people believed to have epilepsy
You may be interested to know that I've initiated a peer review on this article --Colin°Talk 23:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

JohnBWatt and Mucky Pup
Could you take a look at JohnBWatt's actions of late on Mucky Pup, as well as the report I put of his actions on the 3RR list? This user has become incredibly hardheaded again, asserting ownership and demanding that only he can determine the content of the page, and consistently deleting valid information that he deems unworthy. Ironically, the information that he insists on deleting is what helped swing the AfD discussion, I think... thanks... MikeWazowski 06:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's a good addition to the article. Hopefully he can leave it alone. I will. MikeWazowski 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with intro, at this point. So, thank you for your intervention. Can't say I won't continue to work on the article and make additions and corrections, but the general synopsis idea is fine. JohnBWatt 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, how about that, two mostly-satisfied customers. The irony is, I've never heard of Mucky Pup before, and I wouldn't recognize a Mucky Pup tune if it bit me on the Gluteus maximus. - ikkyu2 ( talk )

Avraham Shmulevich
Dear Ikkyu2,

I did not attack the post, or the poster. I did not even attack Shmulevich himself. I called his followers "hoodlums", and their posters "moronic", not because I agree or disagree with their political position, but because I viewed the contents of the website and the pictures of their "actions". The degree of stupidity contained therein is directly relevant to B.A.'s notability as a political movement: the lamer, the less legitimate, the more deletable. As for expressing my feelings strongly, I am proud to have done so. I did nothing wrong. Crzrussian 15:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Demon Zophiel
"There's no reason to keep this article since it links to Jophiel now." yes sorry should have explained it better, hope my new comment makes more sence. It was a stupid cock up I forgot to do a search to see if he was listed under a different name and created that article to contain the same info that the Johiel article contains. Anyway hopefully will be deleted now although I suppose its possibly a good search term?

AFD
Hi, in case you don't have my page on watch here's a courtesy note to say I replied there. --kingboyk 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Domenico Cotugno

 * Cotugno was not a neurologist in the actually meaning of the word (by the way, I am also neurologist), but contributed to the developement of knowledge about some neurological conditions, e.g. Cotugno's syndrome, a unilateral neuralgia along the distribution of the sciatic nerve; Liquor Cotunni, i.e. the cerebrospinal fluid. The article about Cotugno in en.wikipedia is a stub, I will thereupon expand it. Excelsior, March 11, 2006, 8:23 (GMT) P.S. See the new article Domenico Cotugno. Exc...

Removing caps in section headers

 * Thanks, I appreciate the note. I can fix this problem with my editing aid, so it's really useful that you've told me. Rich   Farmbrough 19:28 12  March 2006 (UTC).

Closures
The discussions that I closed today were for articles that had already been deleted. What's the point of leaving them open? To debate about an article that no longer exists? Bobby1011 08:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a clue who deleted them, other than that they were administrator(s) and failed to close the discussions by themselves. Bobby1011 09:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as I can tell the articles were deleted by User:Sannse and User:BorgHunter, neither of whom are Australian. Bobby1011 09:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Llamacon (2nd nomination)
Good morning. You participated in the Deletion Review discussion of this page. The page was relisted on AFD. I noticed that you don't appear to have commented in the AFD discussion yet. So far, there has been scant participation and it may have to be relisted. If you feel it's appropriate, please join the conversation. Rossami (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I regret that I must disagree with you and opine to keep the article.  - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 17:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Idiopathic
Thanks for your expert correction of my mistake in epilepsy. I am kicking myself for not researching and double-checking that more thoroughly. I hope you weren't rolling your eyes and cursing too much - your edit summary was very polite. What is most annoying to me is that a good definition of both terms (and explanation of the confusion they cause) is in the article at the ILEA that I mentioned just a little further up this talk page. I like the "a disorder unto itself" definition. Another good definition I found here is "an idiopathic disease is a “primary” or “intrinsic” disorder that cannot be attributed to any other underlying condition" (my emphasis). I'll try to work this info into the article, as well as adding some good-quality references. Cheers, Colin°Talk 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Warm thoughts
I'm sorry to see you're on break, but hope you will be back soon. Wikipedia is much improved by your fine writing and spirit. Regards, +sj + 07:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I have followed the evolution of the Epilepsy page and your contributions thereto, and that has really helped me to understand how and when to contribute to an article that I am no expert on and how to read Wikipedia articles in general - what information to be wary of, etc (especially when science is involved). Thanks for your contributions, and I do hope that you return to your wikihobby! 1Winston 16:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have followed the E-article for sometime, I must say that I appreciate your efforts as a doctor and person. Please continue your research, scientifically and humanely. Also, your list of persons is interesting if not entirely questionable, what is inspiring about those who are afflicted by an invisible ghost? Is it the way they rise to the occassion to meet a ghost or is it the manner in which they rise to shut the closet door in which the ghost lives? Sincerest Regards and Warmest WishesDumonde06 14:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A useless comment on your user page essay...
Hello, Icky! I know almost nothing about epilepsy (a little more than common knowledge) and didn't know you existed till 2 hours ago. I'm somewhat of an "expert" (by WP standards - I'm completely self-taught) in Bantu language linguistics. I've discovered that one way of increasing the SNR is by making the article so in-depth that lesser mortals are too scared to touch it! I guess it works best for under-represented fields only.&lt;br&gt;Anyway, sorry for spamming, and enjoy the rest of your day. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 15:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anticonvulsant thoughts
Nice to hear from you again. Thanks for your kind thoughts. Been very busy too so some things are on the back burner. I've responded to your points on my talk page. BTW: I've created Non-epileptic seizures. Cheers and best wishes Colin°Talk 22:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Oxcarbazepine
You say that "oxcarbazepine is the major hepatic metabolite of carbamazepine". I haven't read that and would be interested if you could find a source.

According to this article, oxcarbazepine is converted to (and can be considered a prodrug for) its active metabolite 10,11-dihydro-10-hydroxy-carbamazepine (also referred to in some papers as a 10-monohydroxy derivative (MHD)). There are two futher pathways, one of which ("quantatively" the lesser of the two) leads to 10,11-trans-dihydroxy-10,11-dihydro-carbamazepine.

Carbamazepine has carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide as a major metabolite, and this seems to cause most of the tolerance and drug interation problems. This in turn can be converted to 10,11-trans-dihydroxy-10,11-dihydro-carbamazepine, which is common to oxcarbazepine above. Many other metabolites are also possible.

I must admit that most of this pharmacokinetics stuff is way over my head. Some of the metabolites are "important" and/or "active", and presumably some aren't. There seems to be quite a lot of uncertainty as to how these drugs work and which metabolites really are important. Perhaps the differences between the two drugs more important that the similarities?

Colin°Talk 12:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hope you return
I have just read your essay Whats Wrong With Wikipedia. No offence, but I tend to agree with your conclusion that it is just a lot of petty carping and complaints.
 * Wikipedia is an evolving repository of information. Information that is unfit to be included will slowly die off and disappear. Information that is accurate and well written will survive longer. You are correct in saying that at the present time any moron can edit the article on epilepsy. However, all it takes is one neurologist in the whole world to have epilepsy on their watchlist, and the article will remain useful for most people. The same applies to articles about relativity, quantum physics, the periodic table etc; they all have experts who keep them on their watchlist. In time, the rules that govern Wikipedia will evolve and give users like yourself more authority in your area of expertise. This will have to evolve slowly, as you don't want to alienate intelligent and conscientious editors and stymy Wikipedia's growth. In the meantime you can revert edits you don't agree with, take the editor to task on the discussion page, state your qualificatons if you need to etc. Personally, I read the discussion page on most articles I peruse, as I find looking at the controversies more interesting than the dry facts. I'm sure there are controversies in neurology; I'm sure the final textbook of neurology hasn't been written.
 * You cited the problem Wikipedia has with UK english and American english. In time, words like fetus will automatically look like foetus if you set your preference to UK english. In the meantime, try not to let it worry you as it's not terribly important.

Also, every time you edit an article you are warned - If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Cwiki 09:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 23:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm more sympathetic to your point of view, but I haven't reached the same tipping point. Mostly my instincts lead me away from articles where the editing frustrates me, and when I check them out later they're none the worse for wear -- still 10% inaccurate, still grammatically infelicitous, still laden with unsourced opinion and trivia. My own perspective is that I have (usually) the power to respect the unfinished state of Wikipedia -- that is to say, I have realized I can never make a Wikipedia article perfect, because there will always be errors or new things to add or new perspectives to incorporate. This lets me not sweat things. I don't know what I would do in your case of deep expertise and an article being chipped away, though. I've also come to accept that Wikipedia is as much a social networking site as it is an encyclopedia, in that the process of editing is much more rewarding in its own way that the information you can glean from reading an article. I grudgingly like it, hell, when I'm "forced" to rewrite an article to cite sources or revise its POV. As for stable articles and the like, I enjoy doing cleanup on an article, "saving" a bad article, because when it's done properly it's much more likely to retain its overall qualities (or quality) over time. It's an art, and not something easily done right tiem after time. In the end, though, wikipolitics and wikilawyering may well result in my own departure, just not immediately. See ya elsewhere! --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Magnesium and Epilepsy
Any chance you could mediate wrt Talk:Epilepsy? Looking at Special:Contributions/Mihai_cartoaje possibly shows an agenda pro magnesium for various conditions. The text I removed is currently restored. Cheers, Colin°Talk 17:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Classification
The following text was removed and replaced with a picture, which only illustrates one of the 5 different classification schemata. Furthermore, the image illustrates how individual seizures are classified, not how epilepsies are classified. Not all epilepsies involve only one seizure type.

Epilepsies are classified five ways:
 * 1) By their first cause (or etiology).
 * 2) By the observable manifestations of the seizures, known as "semiology."
 * 3) By the location in the brain where the seizures originate.
 * 4) As a part of discrete, identifiable medical syndromes.
 * 5) By the event that triggers the seizures, as in primary reading epilepsy.

Knock yourself out with further article "improvements," kiddoes - I'm out of here. - ikkyu2 ( talk ) 01:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

List of people with epilepsy
It is now a Featured List Candidate and I'd appreciate your views. Cheers, Colin°Talk 16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Experts rebellion page
I've started a page on the problem of retaining experts, and on the 'edit creep' phenomenon. At the moment I'm collecting war stories such as yours, so that I can understand the thing better. I'm from the philosophy pages, where we thought this problem was confined to philosophy (because everyone has their own opinions about life, universe &c). Well it's not. The problem goes across a whole range of subjects.

What I really want to understand is whether my theory that most of the good articles in Wiki are the work of a small number of people competent in the subject matter, or informal teams of such people, or whether the infamous slogan that anyone can edit an encyclopedia is in fact true.

I've been an editor since relatively early days (2003) when it was quite a different place. My experience is entirely that there are a small number of people capable of putting together a well-balanced article (including people who review or make well-balanced minor contributions). But there are a vast majority who simply don't understand that where the right place to insert a sentence or an idea, and that experts leave because of this constant well-meaning vandalism. I for one am fed up with explaining over and over again some basic grammatical issues, the need to preserve tense, the importance of checking that the sentence or thought added is not already there, the need to preserve connections between sentences &c.

All stories appreciated. Go to my user page and follow the 'rebellion link', or just leave a note on my talk page. Dbuckner 07:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And thanks for your comments! But for opposing points of view, see User_talk:LinaMishima/Experts_Problem. Disturbing reading.  Dbuckner 08:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * PS the Expert rebellion page has two new sections, one for extracts or links to talk pages showing the sort of problem out there, the other for diffs of articles showing the sort of horrendous things that get into articles.  The editor of this one (not me) actually had something like a nervous breakdown after a few months of this.  And just to ram the point home, at this stage I'm simply collecting information and evidence on the problem.  I don't have a POV.  OK I do but trying to say neutral.  Best. Dbuckner 11:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment on your entry: What's wrong with Wikipedia
Hello, I am among the disenchanted editors on User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion from where I found a link to your essay. I must say I agree with you totally. My issue with the rules here stems from the fact that they are all in tension with each other and along with disabling policies of Ignore all rules and No binding decisions ArbCom has as part of its policy that it will not be bound by precedent. Arbitration policy/Past decisions. As a consequence this internal tension cannot ever be eased by due process. The excuse that this to avoid having to repeat a ruling that may have proved not to be workable is ridiculous on its face, they are not the last level of appeal, that belongs to the Foundation and Wales, if a precedent needs overturning it can be done there.

A doctrine of open ended rules was appropriate in the beginning of the Project; it provided room for quick maneuver and adjustment during the initial phase and allowed for some flexibility as the project defined itself. However if it is to mature beyond its present state some solidification has to occur. Getting rid of those three 'anti-rules' would be a good start. DV8 2XL 22:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi. Thanks for your recent messages and considerate words. Thought you might like to read how Time Magazine reported Davis & Gibbs work on EEG and Epilepsy back in 1935: Epileptic Brain Waves. Groundbreaking stuff! Cheers, Colin°Talk 20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC).