User talk:JamesMMc

Your recent edits
Hi there. 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 tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Onion juice therapy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nk.sheridan    Talk  00:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Onion juice therapy
A tag has been placed on Onion juice therapy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 the talk page 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Blair - Speak to me 07:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Onion juice therapy
I've userfied the page to User:JamesMMc/Onion. You can work on getting it up to standard there. As for the claim that the article was advertising, I think it's a borderline case. I probably wouldn't have speedy deleted it on that basis, personally, but I don't think the decision to do so was grossly inappropriate. Finally, with regards to your contention that your group is less commercial than Wikipedia, that may be true. However, the extent to which an organization is commercial is immaterial to whether or not it may advertise on Wikipedia; we delete advertising from non-profits as consistently as we delete advertising from large multinationals. In any event, please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Onion Juice Therapy
I have nominated Onion Juice Therapy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Onion Juice Therapy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Drivenapart (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edits
Please be aware that if you wish to leave a message for someone, you need to be civil, and you need to leave it for them on their talkpage, not their userpage, as you did on User:Sarcasticidealist. Ask if you have questions about how to leave a message for someone. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Onion Juice Therapy
Hi James (if I may call you that). In fact, the page hasn't been deleted a second time; it remains there. What has happened now is that it has been nominated for deletion, which is a process in which the community debates whether or not to delete a given article. The discussion on the Onion Juice article is here, and you should definitely participate in it. It will run at least five days, after which an administrator will evaluate the discussion and the arguments presented by each side, and either delete or decline to delete the article. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please do take to hear the above message by User:Keeper76. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Response
Sorry for all the mistakes and thanks for your kindness. I was wondering in deciding a deletion if it is more a popularity contest than abiding by wiki policy guidlines - which in and of themselves can be subjective? It seems most of the arguments for deletion are emotional and the multiple attempts - often changing approaches and arguments - trying another one where the first might not have worked - is what's at work here. I have now been hit with a virus that I am guessing is related to this effort. If it is a popularity contest it would be so easy for the established medical mob to pay people to join in anything alternative to conventional cancer treatment and attack it. I hope you consider that the core of this article is sound - despite what others are saying. Granted, it needs a ton of work. Work I would rather be doing than defending the article -- and so soon after being upped. Saying that onion juice therapy is not supported by the scientific work at Cornell is like saying that an umbrella does not help people to avoid the proven notion that skin cancer is related to sun exposure. It is simply a method for consuming something known to help fight cancer - with a long history of being used. That is the bottom line here.

Does anyone really believe that a Profit (not Prophet) industry is going to make a synthetic medicine based on the elements in onion juice that can be sold for a few bucks, vs. the thousands of dollars they currently make on chemo? Let alone recommend that you can just eat more onions or take onion juice for forty days and get better results.

Your recent edits
Hi there. 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 tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 01:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In reference to your message
"You asked that the Onion Juice Therapy page be deleted - why not offer a reason why or contribute a suggestion to improve it. Onions are now confirmed by scientific data to be effective in combating cancer. The onion juice therapy has been used for hundreds of years. Other countries accept it and Juice Therapy is widly recognized. In fact the Juice Fasting site is almost a duplicate of what we offered - so why not attack them as well? No, you just do not agree and want to pull the article because you do not agree. If you succeed will you accept the responsibility of the deaths of all of those who would have otherwise taken this therapy and lived. Not everyone is insured and can afford chemo - what about them. Do you accept - no matter, if it is deleted I am asking that responsibility be on you!!!!!!"

You left the above on my user page and not my discussion page which is meant for such response. If you have to leave a message, please do leave it on my discussion page in future.

In reference to your first line, I have actually on the articles for deletion page given the reasons I felt the article should be deleted - as for how to best improve it, I cannot offer advice on that other than a complete rewrite which could offer the possibility of it 'not' being a recognised method of "curing cancer", as by most medical authorities it is not. As has been proved, various different alternative methods of curing cancer have actually stopped people receiving the treatment they should have got and died as a result - there are many sourced reports of this and as such referring to something as a cancer cure without any 'recognised' medical organisation backing it up is hideously dangerous - as a result I would ask the question that you asked me bacl to you "Would you take responsibility for the deaths of people who, instead of seeking known medically proven curative/palliative care for their illness, had turned to alternative therapies which as a result has killed them?". I presume the answer would be no.

As such, I would suggest that if you want the article kept, you remove all hypothetical references and that simply the facts are given (which can be sourced) with no hyperbole used, remove that it is known to cure cancer (which it is not proven to do, even if it is recognised that onions do have anti-carcinogenic properties in the same way that tomatoes do), that the lecturing tone of the article be reduced, the sources used are recognised as authorities in the cancer field and that no advice is given just the facts. This is a lot of work to do given the current nature of the article.

Also, the fact that something has been used for hundreds of years doesn't immediately make the subject fact, a medically viable source of information or valid for inclusion. For example, in Venezuela there is a "cure" for nervous issues which involves soaking lettuce in water over night and drinking the juice the next day. This has no basis in fact but is used regularly to combat an issue, yet this does not in itself have a page - the reason is that something based in faith which makes claims that does not have sound and recognised medical authorities backing it up, cannot be deigned to be given a place within what is ostensibly an encyclopaedia of factual information. By all means, rewrite the article to say that "According to Sufi belief" and continue to do so throughout the article, but until recognised sources are used and the tone of the article is radically changed, the article can be viewed as an unsourced piece giving information about something which has no factual backbone and as such, given the nature of Wiki and the intent on which it was based, would have to be deleted. Drivenapart (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. David Ruben Talk 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)