User talk:Michael Bailes

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

MedWelcome
-- Richiez (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Medical Sources
Hi again and thanks for your contributions. Hint about citation - whenever a source is indexed in PubMed one easy way to generate a citations is by code like. There are other ways.Richiez (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kadsura longepedunculata
A tag has been placed on Kadsura longepedunculata, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. 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. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Beenkeep Rold (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The speedy deletion tag has been removed. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation style
Hi Michael, I'm glad to see you adding so much material about medicinal herbs, but could you please use a citation style that is a bit closer to APA style, because it is a lot of work to turn your citations around to put the authors first. There is no complete consensus about how to format citations in Wikipedia, but there are recommendations and examples at Citing sources/example style. If you are using a bibliography system (such as Endnote, Zotero, etc.), I'd suggest setting up a style called Wikipedia ... Thanks. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A nice possibility is just to add the PMID or DOI, for example:


 * Then go to http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/, type the article title in the first box and your user name in the second box – and every detail of the citation is added automatically. This ensures a good citation style and saves you a lot of work!
 * Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Copying text
Hi again! Please note that Copyright law prohibits copying most text you find on the internet to Wikipedia, even if you cite your sources. May I ask you to rephrase the text you added to Abietic acid? It was directly copied from the cited paper, which is, as I've said, prohibited by international laws. Please also have a look at your other edits if there is more copied text. All such text will have to be rephrased or removed. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's not a Wikipedia thing, but a thing required by law. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your addition to 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please feel free to add the content of the papers, in your own words. Thank you. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Anypodetos I am still finding my way around Wikipedia so my apologies for any wrong footedness. I am well aware of copyright issues being a plagiarised author myself. I also moderate and contribute to science and gardening sites.

It is often fraught re-writing the conclusions of a scientific study in other than the experimenters own words. I don't think taking one sentence from a study and then quoting the source in any sense could be construed as copyright infringement. If I need to use more than one sentence II use quote marks. Mostly I am using Asian studies and the English can happily do with some improvement.

I can't remember what I wrote about 5-a-reductase. I am surprised that I would have infringed copyright as I am so aware of it. Maybe it was late at night or I could have quoted myself. I recently delivered a paper on it at a local Urologist's conference.

Thanks for your monitoring. I hope I am not causing more work than my contributions are worth!

Michael

PS I have new computer arriving next week and will spend some time on Utube learning about Wiki editing. I find the written instructions a bit daunting. I am only basically computer literate. m

PPS Could you please tell me how to use/reference the same research paper to support two different findings?
 * Hi, the basic procedure is to give a name to the reference, and then for the subsequent times that you want to cite the same article you give the name again, with a slash at the end. The pome page has an example for reference 1, it has "name=Esau" inside the ref tag, then "name=Esau/" the second time. It is helpful to use "Show preview" a lot to make sure that it is all working properly before hitting "Save page". Good luck with that! Nadiatalent (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks muchly but I will have to practice that! What an impressive home page you have! Another question what do you do when you find something that is very wrong or misleading? EG "The sole known plant-derived anti-androgen is 3,3'-Diindolylmethane(DIM" on antiantrogen page. ( see 5 alpha reductase inhibitors for example)

m


 * Hi, sorry for the delay! I was busy off-wiki over the last days.
 * No offence, I hope, for the copyright warning I sent you. I am not sure whether additions like that are already copyright infringement or not. Your edit is here (section "Indications", below the bulleted list). It consists of four sentences from two sources. By the way: Due to the nature of Wikipedia, it's even potential copyright infringement if you quote your own publications.
 * Copyright yes or no, I remember a fellow Wikipedian saying that scientific articles never, ever need quotes from papers (as opposed to, say, articles about poets which could benefit from a short quotation from a poem). I can only agree with this view. Try to read your paragraph from the point of view of someone who wants to know about 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors: It's about "tertiary prevention" (how many people know what that is?), says "currently" (will that still be true in a year or two?) and "interest in this topic is at a peak" (which really doesn't say anything specifically, nor is it a sentence you would find in an encyclopaedia).
 * Please don't take that as criticism. What I want to say is that we should try to be a high-quality encyclopaedia: writing as short and clear as possible, so that people who don't know much about a subject will understand us with as little effort as possible. For that purpose, it is nearly always counterproductive to use text from papers without any rephrasing. I know that's more work than copying text, but it's really worth it. Cheers, --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Anypodetos I see now I quoted those reports because what they are saying is still controversial and as yet not proven so I wanted them to take the rap for it not me!

michael

Correcting wrong information
Re your question above: If you find wrong information on Wikipedia, just correct it and add a source to prove that your modification is correct. However, the 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors aren't antiandrogens by the definition in the article: The former inhibit biosynthesis of DHT, the latter block androgen receptors directly. So, unless you find substances from plants that block androgen receptors, I'd leave the sentence alone. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is wrong, but will have to research it. A novel class of pyranocoumarin anti-androgen receptor signaling compounds Guo J., Jiang C., Wang Z., Lee H.-J., Hu H., Malewicz B., Lee H.-J., Lee J.-H., Baek N.-I., Jeong J.-H., Kim D.-K., Kang K.-S., Kim S.-H., Lu J. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 2007 6:3 (907-917)

m

"Medicinal uses"
Another one: Please note that there is a huge difference between an effect of a plant or substance that has been tested in clinical trials (in humans) and an effect that has been found in animal models, cellular models or the petri dish. If you add petri-dish properties of substances (such as Plumbagin) under a header like "Medicinal uses", this is highly misleading to our readers as it sound like (1) the properties were tested in humans and (2) the substance is actually used for the purpose and scientists think it actually helps. In situations like in Plumbagin, a title like "Pharmacologic properties", accompanied with a short description of how the properties were found, would be much better. I've done that for this article, but please take care when editing further articles. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To expand on this, Wikipedia should only sparingly report on in vitro studies. Even using these types of studies to claim "pharmacologic properties" for a plant that contains them is a big stretch.  Rarely do in vitro studies on individual chemical compounds have relevance to even the potential to effect human health.  The way that you are adding content to articles makes them highly misleading to the reader.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.89.95 (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. In vitro studies can support traditional uses. Rarely is enough money available to take a herb to many Clinical trials in Humans. To get a new drug on the market is now costing close to $1B. Such studies can validate traditional uses and give valuable drug leads to pharmacologists and often give some insight into the disease process itself. Michael
 * I realize that studies of some phytochemicals have lead to viable pharmaceutical drug leads. But that doesn't change the fact that most in vitro testing is not relevant to human health.  Wikipedia simply shouldn't be reporting on scientific findings that are of unknown value.  If there are reliable sources stating that in vitro testing has some clinical significance, it would be good for Wikipedia to include that; but I don't think it is a good idea at all to be simply listing the results what amounts to preliminary research reported in solely primary sources.  I think it actually lowers the encylopedic value of our articles to do so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.89.95 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree then. m

Edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits
Hello Michael, and thanks for your contributions. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

Another note on editing: It will also be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. Thanks in advance for considering this. Eric talk 16:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What is an edit summary pls?


 * I need to save changes incrementally as my WWW link is unreliable.


 * m
 * Follow the edit summary link in my above post to see an explanation. Eric talk 14:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Again... citation style
Following on to messages from January, can I ask you to be more thorough when adding references to online sources such as the FDA website? Bare URLs are not quite acceptable. Have a look at cite web, which is quite straightforward. JFW &#124; T@lk  13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, just to add a bit to that: bare URLs are a problem because as soon as they break (if a paper is moved), we can't figure out what the paper was to trace it and update the link without some more clues such as author name, date, title, or something. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How else am I going to add current or breaking FDA alerts/press releases without reference to their website or similar? i am a bit amazed the FDA does not add them themselves (I have the last 12 months of alerts but few are in wiki.) I intend adding any important or new ones in future. Even if a link is broken in the future, it is not that hard to search the FDA website to check. It is not as if I am making it up!

I don't understand your paragraph about "straightforward"
 * Actually, I agree with you, using the cite web template is not easy to understand, I haven't figured it out yet. When you cite research papers, please be sure to add an author name and year at least (perhaps you do that for research papers, but a lot of people don't). Nadiatalent (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Verbascum thapsus
I removed the information from the article, contentwise, I'm not sure a bare list of chemical substances without any context (i.e. why is it relevant that the plant has this specific compound?) is useful. There were more nitpicky issues, notable the article was already cited elsewhere in the article, so we had it referenced in two different places using completely different formats. Maybe I'll revisit the article to see whether some more information can be integrated in the "description" section. Circéus (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, obviously your baby, i thought I was helping improve an already good article. If you follow the links like polysaccarides, saponins etc or any chemist/pharmacist/trained herbalist will know the sorts of pharmaceutical properties they would have; which in turn support the folk and traditional uses previously mentioned.That is why it is useful information
 * PS I am unable to find any reference to rotenone in Verbascum.
 * See also the question I asked about botanical varieties.


 * I'll consider seeing if I can dig some more information on the compounds and their effects (because—as I already said—just saying "there is compound X in plant Y" is not very encyclopedically pertinent). I'll probably have to add something about Mullein flowers being usually used mixed too. If you have specific references with information you think really ought to be integrated in the article, by all mean, tell me.
 * As for rotenone, the information is from Plants for a Future. Circéus (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I can give you this if you like but that is over the top:-

Antiinflammatory effects in THP-1 cells treated with verbascoside. Phytother Res. 2010 Sep;24(9):1398-404 Authors: Speranza L, Franceschelli S, Pesce M, Reale M, Menghini L, Vinciguerra I, De Lutiis MA, Felaco M, Grilli A

Verbascum thapsus commonly known as 'mullein' is part of a large family of Scrophulariaceae consisting of more than 360 species. From antiquity Verbascum thapsus has been used as a medicinal herb, it contains diverse polysaccharides, iroid glycosides, flavonoids, saponins, volatile oils and phenylentanoids. Inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) represents one of the three isoforms that produce nitric oxide using L-arginine as a substrate in response to an increase in superoxide anion activated by NF-kB. It is implicated in different pathophysiological events and its expression increases greatly during an inflammatory process, due to oxidative stress and the activation of the enzymes of the antioxidant network such as SOD, CAT and GPx.In this study an inflammatory state was reproduced by treating THP-1 cells (human myelomonocytic leukaemia) with pro-inflammatory stimuli, such as LPS and IFN-gamma, obtaining an up-regulation both in the expression and in the activity of iNOS. The aim of the work was to investigate the antiinflammatory action of verbascoside using a concentration of 100 mum. The results show a significant decrease of the expression and activity of iNOS, extracellular O(2) (-) production, SOD, CAT and GPx activity when the cells were treated with verbascoside. Based on these results it is hypothesized that verbascoside has antiinflammatory properties since it reduces the production of superoxide radicals and consequently reduces the activity of iNOS.

PMID: 20812283 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I have searched both Embase and Medline and found no reference to Rotenone. Duke's data base quotes Duke, James A. 1992. Handbook of phytochemical constituents of GRAS herbs and other economic plants. Boca Raton, FL. CRC Press.Which I have somewhere but it is buried. No quantities are given so it is unlikely to be a problem.
 * I have seen rotenone mentioned in several places in connection to V. thapsus seeds, but never with any details. All I can surmise is that someone pre-1950 reported detection of the compound and the information is often carried by later sources, but since I had a good review source (PFaF) explicitly citing its presence, I did not bother hunting down the origin of it, and kept to a noncommittal statement reflecting the available information. Thanks for pointing that article. I had spotted it, but overlooked the fact it specifically discussed Common Mullein. Circéus (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Ta; I just wish I could remember 50% of what I post! m

Edit summaries/signature
Hi Michael Bailes, thanks for editing Wikipedia. Just to let you know, when you place the four tildes for edit summaries, it just shows up as four tildes (and not a signature). The four tildes works only on talk pages (I think I've seen it on articles, too, but its not for that and should only be used on a page's talk page). It doesn't hurt anything, but there's no purpose to doing it on edit summaries. Here is what it looks like on your edit contributions page. I'm just sayin... Thanks again, Hamamelis (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hamamelis. I Am not sure how I am supposed to sign contibs then? They seem to come up from me anyway?


 * No problem. There's no need to sign your contribs at all. The reasons (I think) we sign on talk pages are 1.) courtesy (obviously), 2.) it gives other editors a person and address in which to respond to what you've written, and 3.) it automatically dates what you've written. There maybe other reasons that I'm unaware of, but those are the main ones. When I place four tildes here, at the end of my response to you, on your talk page, this --> ~, becomes this --> Hamamelis (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC) PS: If you're wondering how I could place those first four tildes without changing them into a signature, it works like this; if you place a in front of any wiki code, and follow same by a  , it makes the code not work, and will just show verbatim what's in between (in this case, four tildes). If you would like more help, I'm happy to. You're obviously a knowledgeable person, judging from the content of your edits, and I hope you won't get discouraged by all the technical details. (I still know very little of it, compared to many editors. I think it's a gradual learning process for everyone who edits.) Good luck, and happy editing! Hamamelis (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your offer of help. I am a bit lost on the technical stuff I have always had a computer, since the first Mac, but am age challenged (62YO) so it does't come as easy to me as a 10 year old! Help would be wonderful thanks! Michael Bailes (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC) (test)


 * Hey, I'm 46YO! When I graduated high school, Fortran (which used punch cards) was the only computer subject available. Believe it or not, the average demographic for a wikipedia editor is something like 20YO. Many are like 16, or younger. So, I have some inkling of what you are talking about...More to follow, Hamamelis (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference templating
OK, here's something helpful, hopefully! In a recent edit you made to the article Zingiber zerumbet, you added the ref this way:



Good, but this will be an improvement:


 * If you place a bar, like this one -> | (located on my keyboard just under the backspace key, but shown as a broken bar ¦ for some reason) before a word such as 'author', or 'title', etc., then add equals =, then fill in whatever the author, title, etc. is (see below):


 * url=http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/543216.pdf
 * author=N.J.Yob, S.Mohd. Jofrry, M.M.R.Meor.Mohd. Affandi, L.K.Teh, M.Z.Salleh, and Z.A.Zakaria
 * title=Zingiber zerumbet (L.) Smith: A Review of Its Ethnomedicinal, Chemical, and Pharmacological Uses
 * journal=Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
 * pages=1–12
 * publisher=Hindawi Publishing Corporation
 * doi=10.1155/2011/543216
 * accessdate=May 20, 2011


 * Next, at the top of the list, ad this:
 * (&mdash;I just arbitrarily chose the ref name from the acronym of the journal's name)


 * If you string them all together, it should then look like this:




 * At the end of the page is always the, or . They both serve virtually the same purpose, and I don't know why some people prefer one over the other, but I like.


 * Now I will put in both your's and my versions of the same ref, follow it by a, remove my  (as discussed earlier), and you will be able to compare how they appear (obviously, I think you will prefer my version, but that is up to you). Here goes!


 * Your version:


 * My version:

Careful with additions to articles on chem
I guess your intention is to supplement many articles with notes about potential herbal cures. Some such additions may be noteworthy, but some would qualify as fringe science, so please be careful. Just because some book claims that xyz compound is a "purgative" is probably not reason to add that information to an encyclopedia!

On a similar vein, the targeted references are definitely not "in press". Instead, we tend to focus more on secondary sources. See WP:SECONDARY. This advice is especially important for things that have medical implications. So this kind of ref will be removed by attentive editors. Example: "Inhibitory effects of Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis, L.) extract on the formation of advanced glycation end products.", [Article in Press] Food Chemistry 2011" is probably neither noteworthy (80000 chemistry papers appear annually) not appropriate (per WP:SECONDARY).  Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I find these comments offensive. I am using the latest published literature from major medical databases. Phytopharmacy is not fringe science and to say so just demonstrates your ignorance and prejudice.
 * Well you might find the comments offensive, but you are working within a consensus driven project that copes with a lot of contributions on all ideas ranging from nutty to standard dogma.  But independent of your or my views are policies WP:MEDRS, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:RSMED. If you dont like the policies, you can try to adapt to them or try to revise them (which is not impolite). Good luck, --Smokefoot (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you read any of my contributions? I am very unlikely quote "some book claims that xyz compound is a "purgative"". I disagree with your assessment of the importance of the Lemon Balm article. I included it as there was some previous doubt about it's usefulness in Alzheimers/memory. The research I quoted goes to that question which anyone with a modicum of medical knowledge would see. I put about 0.001% of the herbal abstracts I read weekly in Wikipedia. I ignore most analytical chemistry, herbs that Wikipedia does not list ( to hard to start from scratch),unlisted Chinese formulas,and what I consider trivial. I tend to just use very recent modern research because starting from scratch with some entries is far too time consuming for me. (Unless I get keen). Some entries are very sketchy and poorly referenced in the extreme,(I am continually fixing "citation needed" entries) I would be embarrassed by many entries if this was my encyclopaedia. I always put in clinical trials when I see them. When I come across a good review article I add it, whether I refer to it or not, as I feel this gives people a chance to follow up in detail the Wiki entry.


 * Approximately 80,000 publications appear annually in the chemistry world alone, so that is one reason that you are incorrect about your well-intentioned but misguided plans to add primary literature. The other reasons can be read by consulting WP:NOT, which is helpful reading for new editors. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that link; apart from "Wikipedia is not a battleground"Michael Bailes (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you need to read past the first few lines, down to where the emphasis is on WP:SECONDARY (not primary refs, esp for articles related to biomed advicy) WP:NOTNEWS (relevant to "in press" articles), and [WP:FRINGE]] (relevant to purgatives and such). --Smokefoot (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No still don't see it Are you being too precious? Perhaps you should stick to the chemistry you know and leave me to the plants I know. Michael Bailes (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

People not patients
As we are writing a general encyclopedia we typically use people rather than patients... Otherwise carry on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Point taken.

September 2011
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain this comment? I don't understand it.
 * michael
 * My immediate concern is with your contributions to Garlic, but looking at your talk page and other edits, I think you need to reread previous comments on your editing above here and here, and take a closer look at WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I can't see anything wrong with the garlic entry. It seems to me to be a unique, recent discovery that there are chemicals in garlic other than sulphur compounds that may have a medicinal properties. It is also the first time, to my knowledge, garlic compounds have been shown to have potential in pain relief. (Even then it is not a wild unsubstantiated claim that it will "cure pain" such that I see everywhere in Wiki on herbs.-- For starters readers will need to know what COX does) Surely something that needs mentioning especially in the tentative ('are likely') way I did. Michael

PS Further your direction to 'reliable sources' I find this insulting. 99.95% of the additions I make to Wiki are referenced to peer reviewed journal articles. The other 0.05% to science websites I trust. About 10% of the time I am the first to add "references" tags to Wikis "scientific" raves on medicinal plants which generally speaking are in an appalling state, even to the extent of misspelt botanic names. I rarely delete anything, though sorely tempted, and nowadays mostly confine myself to current research papers, as I don't have the time or energy to properly edit/revise plant entries.


 * I suggest you discuss your perspective at WP:ORN before the situation escalates further. I see good reason to delete a great deal of your remaining edits for the reasons given. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? I find this attitude unfathomable. Do you want to elaborate? You would prefer anecdote before research papers. Why would that be?
 * I'm happy to explain, or maybe we should get a even wider perspective than you've already seen by bringing it up at WP:ORN.
 * No one is saying they "prefer anecdote before research papers" other than you, so let's drop that please. --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I am at a loss to understand what you are on about. I am an old man and deciding, or arguing about, who is "right" or "wrong" on the internet is a job for those with more testosterone, arrogance, certainty and time than I have. For me "truth" is not an absolute term, and not one important enough to waste time arguing about on the WWW. I just report the science. Unless you have specific issue you want to raise (as with garlic) please go away.
 * If you're not interested in understanding the problem, nor discussing it, then expect much of your editing to be deleted per the discussions above. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Who are you and who gave you sheriff's badge? I am quite happy to have any specific edit challenged although I don't see why when all are properly referenced. (As above with your challenge to garlic I gave you the reason why reporting that reserch seemed important to me.) It seems to me you are the one who doesn't want to discuss anything and just deals in vague generalities.If I don't "understanding the problem," whose fault is that?
 * Do you want to discuss the problems or not? --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can you please explain to me what we are doing now?
 * I'm trying dispute resolution with you, hoping we can focus on content, stay cool, and discuss the matter. Would you like to discuss the concerns or not? --Ronz (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Coenzyme Q10 do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine I do know that; my mistake. I can't even remember what it was now. I usually reference journal articles. You do know Wiki is full of commercial links? I just came across this just now:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphytum_tuberosum "Natural England" is a link to a Plant nursery that no doubt sells the plant. m

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Bone density, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page BMD (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

References for medical claims
Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I use Embase, Medline or Pub Med. Do you have a problem with these?Michael Bailes (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS details numerous problems with using individual studies. Multiple editors have informed you of this multiple times in multiple ways. --Ronz (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific edit please tell me. Many of the plants I edit have little or no research, certainly no review articles. I feel some information is better than nothing. If a good review article exists, and is free on line, I generally give a link to it.I don't see the point of summarising or "bowdlerising" it. eg one found recently but not used (yet)http://www.pranamonde.co.za/publication.pdf Michael Bailes (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion about primary sources and reviews: reviews are preferable, but should not become a strait jacket. When 10 individual studies point in the same direction and the eleventh do the same, then it is okay to refer to that study. And sometimes a single study make a sudden and huge impact (in the scientific community), and is immediately recognized as an original contribution. But science is also fallible, and different considerations must be weighed against each other.


 * Michael Bailes: I think you do a very good job for Wikipedia. I hope you will set up a userpage soon! Granateple (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Granateple has made similar edits, and has found absolutely no support from them.
 * Likewise, simply adding individual studies is unhelpful. Drawing conclusions from them, inappropriate.
 * The problem here isn't a few edits. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks muchly User:Granateple, a rare pat on the back. User:Ronz I am getting sick of this carping, generalised criticism. It seems to me to have more to do with the subject area I edit rather than the edits themselves. Every (repeat EVERY) edit I make is supported by an academic paper. Often I am finding paers to support stuff that is already there, some I cannot. I do not draw conclusions from research, I just report it. Usually I just report recent stuff unless I find info on a plant is sorely lacking, then, if I have time, I might do some research on it. Wiki can have 2,000 word articles without one reference yet I cop the criticism. Unless you have a specific problem that we can address ( I am not infallible and am happy to be corrected)I can't see the point of this conversation. I donate a lot of time and energy to Wiki and frankly I am getting fed up with this sort of carping. If you don't want me here, because I somehow offend your view of the world, say so. Michael Bailes (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're not interested in working with other editors productively, then perhaps it's best you either change your editing so it's not so controversial, or you give up editing altogether as you suggest. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you continue to speak in generalities rather than specifics, how can i discuss anything?Michael Bailes (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeating yourself is unhelpful. Multiple editors have commented here on this concern. If you don't understand, ask questions for clarification. --Ronz (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple? I just feel bullied and harassed by you Ronz Michael Bailes (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you don't really want to discuss the concerns at this time. --Ronz (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horseradish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nasturtium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks fixed link to appropriate wiki page Michael Bailes (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Mike, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Willowtits (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Thank you very much Willowtits,sometimes I feel a little lonely here. Some entries on plants are beyond repair; so of late I have just been adding recent open=access scientific papers with WWW/PDF links or just very recent interesting papers. I never remove anything but that sometimes means you have an un-supported assertion followed by my referenced "rebuttal" (see Aquilegia vulgaris which I am sure is not "poisonous" just because it has some 'not nice' family members Michael Bailes (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, my style is similar to yours, but i spend very little time on Wikipedia. Most of the time, if i have any to spare, is in the other sister projects, such as Wikibooks and Wiktionary. Like you, i feel very lonely in Wikipedia, not to mention very oppressed, a word that you used most appropriately. At the end of the day, i realise that Wikipedia is not a place for open debate, as you need only one closed mind to remove your contributions, whatever their merits. There are Caesars sans subject knowledge, wielding the Mjölnir with impunity. Willowtits (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes agreed I would do  a lot more here (I am semi retired) if the environment was not so combative/toxic and there were some protocols for Caesars removing stuff at their whim. Surprisngly it is usually not the well refrenced stuff, just stuff that offends their prejudices/world view or the barrow they are pushing. Also I find it very insular-USA centric. Wiki runs the risk of becoming a joke, if it is not careful.(Why I like to add open access PDF files as it may at least give conscientious students some good references to look at, or at least to kick start their research) I have heard of people changing Wiki to win a bet at a pub/social gathering!! Perhaps instead of donating time here we should be making money at the pub? :)Michael Bailes (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Amongst the various virtual fauna, there are the barrow-pushers and those with insular USA-centric Weltanschauung. Of greater concern are the barrow-pushers, because they are closed to reason. He who pays the piper calls the tune, whether it is a pub crawler or a Fortune 500 company. i myself am not retired yet, but soon will be. Then i will have lots of time on my fingers. Willowtits (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)