User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2015/November

Robert Lewy
Good morning. Marchjuly and I have been discussing a few small edits. The first would remove the word "actively" sued breast implant manufacturers at the top. As a physician I'm sure you may know what a class action is and that was my only participation as a court appointed expert. I saw the opt-ins and not the opt-outs who were seeking "vast rewards" as the NYT states. A class action is agreed to by all and seeks to avoid litigation. Secondly, use of the word "alleged"'in the stand alone line. Surely these peer reviewed articles weren't legalese and it's a bit of a slur as the data is the data. Thirdly, most of my career and citations are about antiplatelet therapy to block thromboxane release in angina. We did this in 1979! Many articles on this, but no mention under Career. Perhaps a Researchgate citation? I was a hematologist presenting this at cardiology meetings because hematologists weren't interested. Lastly, the NYT article states that the overwhelming Concensus believes silicone safe. At the same time the NIH was holding a national conference on silicone toxicity cited in the article perhaps some balance can be restored. I'm sure you would not have free silicone injected in yourself as was done after the war and it took 10 years off the market before FDA was convinced leakage had been solved.,why so long if it is inert? Forgiven the time it took for,you to read this and I'm hoping together with Marchjuly some small changes can restore balance to my battered entry Kingseason (talk) Kingseason (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I make no claim to be a physician. I am expressly not a physician. Nor am I a lawyer. I edit articles in many subject areas, and mostly focus on ensuring that reliable sources are cited. The Wikipedia community has developed a workable guideline (wp:MEDRS) for selecting such sources for the support of assertions on biomedical topics. I simply endeavour to apply that guideline, particularly when assertions appear to be potentially contentious.
 * The word "alleged" was inserted by while working to clean up the promotional autobiographical mess that was the article. Perhaps you should discuss it with them? If the courts have since cleared up the legal questions we might change "alleged" to "then-alleged" or use some similar construct to convey the distinction between the contemporary condition and the present one. Of course any statement distinguishing the present condition should also be provided with a reliably-sourced citation. If there never were such allegations, then removal of the word would make sense.
 * The word "actively" is not present in the article, perhaps you refer to the "played an active role in litigation" phrase? If you contend that expert testimony is a "passive" role, you'll need some way to source that assessment, as it runs contrary to the common-sense meaning of the words. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Actively .... Suing the manufacturers isn't something I ever did. Can't prove that negative, it's something the editor editorialized. On contrary, anyone working on the class action was excluded from private litigation.,it's just something the editor slid in there keying off the NYT article. Can I find a source saying I didn't after all,these years - prob not. But it's a wild statement without its own source, no? Now for "alleged". In the single sentence. With references peer reviewed I was never alleging anything but the facts as I found them. So the editor was alleging that I was alleging. Really unfair, but again no way I can make them retract it without some help. Not the end of the world, just slurs me as if to say I had an agenda. Never was a court issue, just as you would do, some data driven peer reviewed original stuff. Perhaps,you could help with these two issues? Fyddlestix has not helped and she has taken the prejudicial nature of the NYT article and turned the while article into an editorial incited in these two instances. I agree the article,originally was a mess but these two little words are her editorializing, and incited. Any help appreciated in fairness. Kingseason (talk) Kingseason (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ps as you have concluded, I had no part as stated in first para helping anyone suing any manufacturer of anything.completely unattributed, Thanks Kingseason (talk) Kingseason (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please make the effort to form full sentences when writing, it is otherwise difficult to guess one's meaning. I think you may be reading more into the words than they convey. The phrase "one of several doctors who played an active role" does not imply what that role was. It certainly does not say that Lewy sued the manufacturers. As I understand it Lewy had a business providing expert testimony on a regular basis. That would certainly seem to justify the characterization of an "active role". Even if he had no such business but still testified frequently, the characterization would be apt. It does not imply taking a side, nor helping a litigant, nor benefiting from a decision.
 * As far as "the editor was alleging that I was alleging" it again seems to be something that is not in the article. If the article had instead said "Lewy has published papers on the alleged health effects of silicone breast implants" it would have been saying in the voice of the encyclopedia that those effects were indisputable fact, rather than Lewy's primary reporting of findings. Unlike academic publications, we must be very circumspect in our use of primary sources on Wikipedia to avoid inserting our own interpretation. This is one of the key underpinnings of wp:MEDRS.LeadSongDog come howl!  22:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even usually reliable publishers err. Do you know of any sources which are comparably or more reliable that contradict the NYT version?LeadSongDog come howl!  04:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough I may be overreacting but please understand what the NYT said I did and what I did are different..here's where the line is crossed IMHO. Being a court appointed expert to administer a class action is the opposite of giving testimony. I gave no testimony or had any such business. I'm accused of it, which is unpreventable, but the editor repeats it without a source, giving it the Wiki imprimatur. Again, I never had any role helping anyone suing the manufacturers either. The court would not tolerate it. Yes it's innuendo x2. Since your expertise is references, I hope,you see what I mean and can help. If not, thanks for listening.Kingseason (talk) Kingseason (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colgan Air Flight 3407, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WBEN. 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) 14:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Adrenocorticotropic hormone page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=690959662 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F690959662%7CAdrenocorticotropic hormone%5D%5D Ask for help])

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Early Meetings of the Conference on Data Systems Languages pdf
Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:



to fulfill your request at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but the request wasn't from me, it was from LeadSongDog  come howl!  05:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Doh! Facepalm. Fixed it. Worldbruce (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)