User talk:M. A. Bruhn

Welcome!


Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try Questions, ask me on my talk page, or.
 * Quick introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to write a great article
 * Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLOS Computational Biology
 * Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)
 * A few tricks to help you format references are at WP:MEDHOW

''If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to visit the Medicine Portal. If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).''

Again, welcome!

^^^ The above boilerplate provided merely because it's a convenient way to give you those links. I particularly like the "Ten Simple Rules" paper.

And for the real message: Thanks for joining the discussion at WT:MED today. I'm really glad to see you there, and I really appreciate your comments about the importance of sepsis and the difficulty of getting good numbers. I hope to see you again! WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the welcome! I look forward to future participation with WikiProject Medicine :) M. A. Bruhn (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Sara
Thanks for the help. Could you edit episode 2 after repulsing a voyeur attempt by Jessie and Gertrude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringlet (talk • contribs) 01:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I've gone ahead and edited it. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the clarification. Not sure of the plot points so your input is most welcome.

A message from Batcrop, the "Ban the curiously robotic purple prose committee." Always on the lookout for Gotcrop, the "Generation of torrents of curiously robotic purple prose". Stringlet (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration propossed decision
Hi M. A. Bruhn, in the open Michael Hardy arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Michael Hardy is reminded that:
 * 2) Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
 * 3) All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
 * 4) Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
 * 5) MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
 * 6) The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

allegations
I continue to find it disturbing that your libelous comments [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ancestral_health|here] are part of a permanent record.

You are the only person who uses the word "legitimacy" or "legitimate" on that page, and the initial use of the word "scam", a seemingly unmotivated accusation without specificity by the nominator, was withdrawn by the person who put it there.

Can you tell me specifically what evidence you have for your assertion that none of the participants have any publications in journals outside that of this organization. You don't get to be a professor by doing that, so they must have published things. And since when is it considered somehow wrong for a group of professors to come together via the blogosphere? And you assert that they have made "no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals". Do you have a reason to think that's true? Again, those among them who are established researchers or health care professionals didn't get there by having no communication with others. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Blanking
On August 6, 2016, you wrote: The best evidence of their lack of acceptance in general scientific discourse, is the fact that all their discussion and collaboration takes place entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discoure [sic]. No publications in journals outside their own, no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations. Their history describes their community as emerging from the blogosphere, and that is where they have since remained. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Let us note that the first name on the history page to which you link is that of Prof. Brett Pottenger of Johns Hopkins University's medical school. Is it your claim that a person becomes a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins by remaining entirely outside the forums of general scientific discourse, and publishing nothing outside the journal of an organization that the professor helped found? You wrote: "I do wish they didn't co-opt mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy." So if a professor of medicine at a prestigious university uses mainstream scientific terminology, you consider that an effort to create an "appearance of legitimacy" and something that should not be done? Why don't you sent him an email and tell him so? Or send an email to the medical school complaining about him? Here is his web page: http://www.brentpottenger.com/ Here are his publications in mainstream journals, including the Annals of Emergency Medicine and the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. Are those "entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discour[s]e"? Note that he is the principal author and other scientists are listed as co-authors. Does this mean he has done "no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations"?

Here is Prof. Aaron Blaisdell of UCLA. I could show you a similar page listing his publications and co-authors. Is he "entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discour[s]e", having done "no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations", and does he "co-opt" standard langauge in order to create an appearance of legitimacy?

Similar things can be said of the others, Chris Owens, Nate Rosenberg, Megan Geremia, Michal Naisteter, Joe Sobolewski, Jake Jacobson, Jesse Maddex, and Gio Carmazzi.

I have blanked the AfD discussion page here with an edit summary saying it's because of libelous material by M. A. Bruhn.

Being on Wikipedia does not exempt you from standards of honesty. Michael Hardy (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Hardy (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)