User talk:MrBill3/Archive 3

Random talk re Russell Targ
TALK PAGE: The talk page is worthless, if I receive no reply. Just the erasure of what I write. You are happy to denigrate my father, who was a most distinguished NY editor and publisher for fifty yeas. Why can't we include The Godfather among his other junky books? He actually created that book. Why can't we include the Wall Street Journal citation of my silver futures forecasting, instead of saying that there is no citation? And what's wrong with including Jessica Utts saying that the work at Stanford was done correctly? Such editing gives Wikipedia a terrible reputation, even among people who are not ESP enthusiasts. Such obviously biased writing is anti science. And what is wrong with adding Atari Inc., since they were our main customer for three years and a quarter million dollars, to design ESP video games. Torgownik (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Russell


 * Your comments on talk pages have not been erased. An excessive rambling message was hatted (it's still there though). What are you asserting is denigration of your father? Your father's involvement in the publication of The Godfather is not relevant to you so it doesn't belong in an article to you. There is discussion of including some content based on the WSJ article. Its a little out of date and secondary sources on the subject are due more weight. Utts position has been pretty roundly rejected by the mainstream scientific community (is there really robust replication, recognized and published? come on now). As was mentioned the contract with Atari needs secondary source support to verify and establish notable. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014
The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the User WPMed template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

IEX article
Hey, thanks for your help with the article and for your concern. I have a flight to catch in a couple of hours and I'll follow up on the proceedings of the article later, but I've already reported this to the functionaries list. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I followed up on your point that PRNewswire is not a reliable source, and replaced it with a secondary and more reliable source (Berkshire Hathaway Businesswire). I also added 1 sentence clarifying the meaning behind the transaction costs. I will help to clarify the other parts of that paragraph. Thanks. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I also fixed the description about Bill Ackman's ownership to become clearer, in accordance to your suggestions in the talk page. Please review it and let me know what you think! Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors
Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Milan Puskar Health Right
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The definition of essential oil
Hello, I would like to ask that you allow me to edit the current wikipedia definition of essential oil because, quite frankly it is not correct. In the fragrance, flavor and aromatherapy industry there are basically two processes of obtaining volatile oils, distillation and extraction. They are very different processes. The term essential oil is reserved for products obtained by Steam Distillation with only one exception and that is the case of citrus oils which are mainly produced by physically pressing the oil from the citrus peel, but still no solvents are used. This process uses steam to liberate the volatile oil from the plant. The plant never comes into contact with any solvents during a distillation process. In an extraction process the oil is pulled out from the plant material by chemical solvents. Its important to realize the difference between the two methods because if one refers to a solvent extracted product as an essential oil he would be misleading his customer. People in the industry who know essential oils are looking for products that have not been in contact with chemical solvents. When solvents are used there are most always solvent residues left in the product. For example, jasmine is never obtained by distillation. The primary method is by a two step solvent process to obtain what is called jasmine absolute. Absolutes are made by first extracting the flowers with hexane or similar non-polar hydrocarbon solvents which pulls out not only the volatile aromatics but the the plant waxes as well. After the hexane is evaporated you are left with a soft semi solid mass called the "concrete". The concrete can be sold as is but will always have some residual hexane (or similar) solvent in it. The concrete can also be further extracted with ethanol to pull out all of the more polar aromatic components. When the ethanol is evaporated the more polar aromatic components are concentrated into what is called the absolute. The absolute will generally contain some residual ethanol (maybe only 1 % or so but can be higher if not evaporated well) and can even contain some residual hexane. These products are not called essential oil in the industry because of the method they are produced and because they contain solvent residues. Most buyers, when looking for essential oils, don't want products with solvent residues which is why its improper to refer to absolutes or other extracted products as essential oils. While this definition may not be formally stated in any literature.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in their Vocabulary of Natural Materials (ISO/D1S9235.2) defines an essential oil as a product made by distillation with either water or steam or by mechanical processing of citrus rinds or by dry distillation of natural materials. Following the distillation, the essential oil is physically separated from the water phase.

If you will allow me to edit the wikipedia entry for essential oil I will make it correct.

If you want to be sure I know what I am talking about you can view my LinkedIn resume here https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertpappas and my Facebook page here  https://www.facebook.com/EssentialOilUniversity

I also own the largest database on the chemical breakdown of essential oils here www.essentialoils.org  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eodoctor (talk • contribs) 05:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes ~ . The place to bring this up is the talk page of the article. I would also suggest that a COI disclosure may be in order. Also you have a right to anonymity on WP which you may want to preserve. A COI disclosure need not disclose your identity. If you wish to be anonymous on WP I will remove the above comment.
 * In order to make the proposed change a reliable WP:MEDRS quality source must be provided. I think that should be possible. There is the issue of "essential oils" that are marketed, sold or promoted that don't meet the requirements set forth. The appropriate procedure at this point would be to 1) Declare COI, 2) Propose the change on the talk page of the article. If consensus is reached another editor will make the change or you can with the backing of consensus.
 * I hope this has been helpful. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Eodoctor (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC) I don't really know what you mean by COI. If that means Conflict Of Interest then I am not sure why you say I have a conflict. I am simply reporting to you the correct industry definition that has been used for hundreds of years. I don't understand wikipedia editing procedures and don't really have the time to mess with it. I just thought you might like to have accurate information. If not then it really doesn't matter to me if you want the section on essential oils to look foolish and not have credibility. Its things like this that gives wikipedia a bad reputation. If you just look at the ISO definition of essential oil then that should be enough proof for you. If you want to let me edit the entry I will make it correct. If not then that's OK too. Perhaps you don't understand that in addition to ISO, I am one of the main authorities in the world on essential oils. Eodoctor (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please place your signature at the end of your comment. By COI I do indeed mean conflict of interest. I would suggest you have a clear conflict of interest due to your professional involvement in the area of articles you contribute to. If you "don't really have the time to mess with" WP editing policies and procedures you are unlikely to be welcomed to make changes to articles.
 * Would you suggest that everything labeled, marketed, promoted and sold using the term "essential oil(s)" complies with ISO? Are there no products labeled as containing essential oils in which they have been extracted with solvents? I think not, so the WP article should not create that impression or imply that. To do so would not be accurate and would not contribute to the credibility of WP, indeed it would be foolish and a misrepresentation of fact.
 * On WP it is not a matter of "enough proof for [me] you" but reliable sources to support assertions. It is not up to me alone but a matter to be decided by consensus based on policy and sources.
 * As you are commercially involved in the subject, if you think the article should be changed, propose the change on the talk page of the article (I suggest including references). It will be assessed by involved editors and can be made if supported by consensus.
 * Your expertise can make a valuable contribution to WP and I hope you are willing and interested in learning how to improve the project in keeping with policies and guidelines. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Eodoctor (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Of course not everything sold as an essential oil is a true essential oil. Many products are adulterated with synthetic aroma chemicals and diluents. But just because people are dishonest and/or ignorant and misrepresent products in the marketplace does not change the definition of what an essential oil is. Essential Oil University does not sell oils, it is educational, analytical and consulting so I have no interest other than setting the record straight. Your point about non-distilled oils in the market being called essential oils is irrelevant. Its like saying because people try to sell zirconium as diamonds makes it legitimate to change the definition of diamonds to include zirconium. Again, you can ask any expert in the industry, Brian Lawrence (former editor of Journal of Essential Oil research) or any representative of IFEAT.org (the industry trade organization) and they will tell you the same thing.Eodoctor (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The place to have this discussion is Talk:Essential oil. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Edits
I want to know why the three edits I made to the Functional Medicine topic were deleted. They are attached here.

Thank You Richard SchuylerRsschuyler (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Functional Medicine "...seeks to pinpoint and prevent the cause of disease Functional medicine is a personalized method for getting to the root of symptoms and restoring balance Proponents espouse that, while invasive medical interventions like drugs and surgery are useful in the treatment of acute illness, they are less effective with chronic conditions.

A major criticism of so-called orthodox medicine by practitioners of functional and complementary medicine is that it views their patient's illnesses in a reductionist manner. In contrast, functional medicine practitioners view their patients in their entirety paying close attention to all the patient's biological systems and how they interact.

Above all functional medicine is a science of creating health. Disease goes away as a side effect. |url=http://www.amazon.com/Disease-Delusion-Conquering-Chronic-Healthier/dp/0062290738/ref=sr_1_3/188-9716670-7760704?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402858539&sr=1-3&keywords=functional+medicine#reader_0062290738

Rsschuyler (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * First please sign your comments at the end. If you wish to make changes to the content of an article, especially one that is contentious, it is a good idea to discuss the changes you want to make on the talk page of the article. If you choose to edit boldly, your edits may be challenged. If they are challenged it is then necessary to achieve consensus on the talk page through discussion. You may want to read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dunn triplets
Hello MrBill3. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dunn triplets, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. No problem to me at all. I am at heart an inclusionist, just didn't see support in the refs. Hopefully it can be improved. Thank you for your contributions to WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rolfing Wikipedia Page
Dear MrBill3,

I saw your wikipedia message. I am new to editing and indeed modified the Rolfing page in 2 places. I removed two sentences which were in error. I am not part of the Rolfing community, but know of this procedure and find sentences (such as the two you reverted from deletion) to be more than misleading and in error.

I've decided I'm not going to waste my time since my changes just got reverted and some kind of change order is desired (which is totally understandable - but I just don't have the time to draft it up). So, I've passed the task on to some other internet friends who are in the Rolfing community. I'm sure you'll find their revisions more helpful than mine.

Sincerely,

Tamran (no a Rolfer or affiliated with the Rolf institute) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.172.125 (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tamran, Welcome to Wikipedia (WP). I hope you find editing fun and worthwhile. Please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes ~.
 * The content you removed (and I restored) was properly sourced. In order to change the content on the medical effectiveness of rolfing quality medical references would be needed, probably after some discussion on the talk page of the article. An editor's assertions of "in error" or "more than misleading and in error" need to be backed up with sources. As clearly stated in Wikipedia's 5 Pillars, "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."
 * Please pass on to your internet friends in the rolfing community the WP policy on conflict of interest and point them to the guideline, "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)". Familiarity with (at least) these two aspects of WP policies and guidelines will make working on the rolfing article proceed much more smoothly. See also WP:5P, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR for a basic grounding in what WP is and the fundamental standards of editing.
 * Thank for your interest and contributions to WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

BMJ
Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to BMJ's library: link to form. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter
 Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter

Issue 1, June/July 2014 by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery



This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice. note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
 * WHO's list of Essential Medicines
 * Neglected tropical diseases
 * Key diseases for medical subspecialties like: oncology, emergency medicine (list), anatomy, internal medicine, surgery, etc.

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

I've () taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
 * IEG grant

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
 * Wikimania 2014

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
 * Integration progress


 * Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
 * Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
 * Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
 * Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
 * Integration guides

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here

News in short


 * To come
 * Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
 * Proofreading drives


 * Further reading
 * Translators Without Borders
 * Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

Your perspective is requested for Sandbox material
Hello MrBill3 - I mentioned that I found some source material that contradicts the inclusion of Rolfing as a type of massage.... I've written up a description of this in my Sandbox. I know Sandbox is often used to write proposed articles, but instead this is a draft of something that could be posted on the Talk page. I used Sandbox so I could get all the source links working smoothly. I value your opinion and your understanding of WP culture and rules, so I wanted to get your involvement before opening it up on the Talk page. I have already consulted two experienced editors, one who I met at the WP Teahouse and the other whose wise edits I noticed on other pages, for some WP-savvy oversight. Now it's time to loop you in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karinpower/sandbox Thanks in advance for taking the time!--Karinpower (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Kudos for a well researched and sourced presentation of the subject. You certainly seem to be developing some serious WikiSkills.


 * I think the argument is certainly ready for presentation on Talk. My response would be along the lines of most sources distinguishing Rolfing from massage are proponents/involved. Parity would give more weight to independent sources. Second the use common names policy. That said I think there is a valid argument for including some content related to the discussion. The issue of OR is also a consideration, but I think some of the sources you cite specifically discuss the issue, those would likely be the sources for content.


 * Thank you for your kind words. I hope you enjoy editing and continue to contribute to WP. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the WikiSkills compliment! I will say, I have learned some it from you. Just today, I saw your source edits on the MFR page (ISBN format, Bantam Books) and have reflected those changes in my notes for those sources. I'll fix them on other pages as I see them.
 * Regarding "use common names," I think the sources that discuss the difference between massage and bodywork would say that "massage" is not a common name for "bodywork" but rather a sub-category which gets confused for a synonym. There are quite a number of sources that discuss this difference - I have only included the ones that specifically mention Rolfing.
 * As to OR, yes, a surprising number of sources specifically discuss the issue. That's what inspired me to bring this forward. Regarding sources, I'm fine with removing Meyers from the discussion - are there others that you consider to be too involved? I would also be fine with removing Considine (b/c it's a mag article) - I only included it because it's cited in the article currently. I also think Singh would be good to disregard; he doesn't cite any sources for his info so he's not a secondary source on the topic of Rolfing. (We had discussed removing him from the article once there were enough other sources; let me know where you stand on that now that we have some new sources.) An "involved" party on the pro-massage side would be Sherman; the massage industry has a financial incentive to rope in as many modalities as possible. Some of the other editors/authors on both sides are practitioners as well; not sure how to factor that in.
 * One of the editors I consulted mentioned a few sources that he thought wouldn't stand up to the strictest MEDRS standards - though I'm not sure why some were considered better than others. You can see the comment string here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yunshui#Your_perspective_is_requested_for_a_sandbox_draft. I haven't gotten a reply about my question on that; maybe you can elucidate. You can see the comments from the other editor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karinpower#Re:_Sandbox. I think their concerns and ideas are pretty useful. Thanks again for your consideration! --Karinpower (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To tighten up the source list, as you suggested, I've pulled Considine out completely (the magazine article) and have removed Meyers and Schultz, the two authors who are Rolfers, to a parenthetical note rather than as a part of the main discussion - I still want to include them as they do represent how Rolfers talk about themselves and their craft. But we do need to separate the Rolfer sources from the others that have a bit of distance. Any others that you think are not so strong? I'm going to go ahead and post on the Talk page and will reference this conversation in case others wish to read it. Thanks for your input. --Karinpower (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add that I didn't include Jones in this discussion because I haven't found a way to access the text of that article without paying for it. Do you have a method for this? Thanks.--Karinpower (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding reversion of edit to "Ancient astronaut hypothesis"
Hello MrBill3,

You recently reverted my edit to Ancient astronaut hypothesis as a violation of WP:NPOV. My change was exactly this:

Legitimate academics Opponents have responded that gaps in contemporary knowledge of the past need not demonstrate that such speculative ancient astronaut ideas are a necessary conclusion to draw.

Without taking a position for or against the hypothesis which is the subject of the article, it seems to me that the word "legitimate" is judgmental in that it disparages the proponents of the hypothesis. This goes against WP:NPOV, which states: "Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." The term "opponents", on the other hand, is precisely an antonym of the term "proponents" used in the previous paragraph, and does not attempt to prejudge.

I would be interested to hear why you considered my edit inappropriate.

Thanks, Achurch (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings . The appropriate place for this is probably the talk page of the article with a ping to me, but I'll answer here. NPOV means we reflect what the sources say. Sagan was not discussing opponents of the ancient alien hypothesis, he was discussing how legitimate scientists have responded. He differentiates between those who pretend some arcane knowledge and those who practice genuine science. He discusses how scientists respond to the fallacy of filling in gaps in knowledge with far fetched speculation. If you read the source you will see that "opponents" is in no way an accurate paraphrase, while legitimate academics reflects the source accurately. As the source has the opinion it is not editorializing but presenting the opinion of the source.
 * NPOV § Due and undue weight, "'Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
 * Oponents does not give the due weight of legitimate scientists the viewpoint of which is vastly more prominent in published reliable sources on the subject. Even the most cursory research into the subject clearly reveals the great majority of published reliable sources do not support the hypothesis.
 * In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. "
 * Legitimate scientists provides just such distinction of the majority view and identifies it as such. Opponents does not provide clarity about which parts of the text describe the majority view versus the minority view.
 * NPOV § Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance " Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."
 * Changing legitimate scientists to opponents is just this kind of comparison. A "precise antonym to proponents" is the very mark of such equal validity that would creat a false balance.
 * FRINGE "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is."
 * Please take some time to read and digest the NPOV policy and for further explanation the WP:FRINGE guideline. Thank you for a courteous inquiry and for your contributions to WP. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification; I overlooked the later section of NPOV you referred to. Achurch (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also thank you for the speedy reply! (and feel free to delete this section) Achurch (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * no worries at all and sorry for the TLDR reply. You may have guessed I have explained this before. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your Last changes at the Bunny Yeager Page
Dear Mr. Bill3,

I want to introduce myself with my real name. I am not familiar with the wikipedia rules. My name is Helmut Schuster. I am the owner and curator of Gallery Schuster in Berlin. I first want to thank you for all the positive work which you did in the last months on the Page of Bunny Yeager. This looks like a lot of work and i really respect this. I saw today that you deleted the word offical at the link to the Bunny Yeager Webpage. The reason was that Mr. Christin wrote that this page would not be the offical page of Bunny Yeager. This is incorrect. Correct is that the page is made by me, with and for Bunny in the year 2008 and that the Page is, and was the only offical Webpage which was accepted from Bunny Yeager.I am also still the only Gallery with an legal contract with Bunny as the first Gallery which is signed by Bunny during her livetime and was never canceled by her.If you need more information about the contract ( a copie) or more press and invitation card about all the exhibitions I am happy to send material to you. Bunny was not only my artist, she was my friend and it is sad that some people try to make profit now after she died.

I would love if you could undo your last changes. Thank you

Greetings from Berlin

Helmut Schuster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8EC0:1060:F16C:75F1:4AB9:4B36 (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings Helmut Schuster. Thank you for your kind words and polite inquiry with explanation. As far as the Wikipedia rules go, it is secondary published sources above all. A good general introduction is The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. A contract is a primary source. Press (newspapers, magazines, books etc) sources are the right kind of sources for a Wikipedia article. An invitation card (while it would be a cherished souvenir) is again a primary source. I am not sure there is going to be a reliable source which authoritatively establishes a particular website as official. Several may wind up being listed, they would certainly include bunnyyeager.net (with none being labeled "official"). The most appropriate place for this conversation is the talk page of the Bunny Yeager article available as a tab at the top of the article.
 * I am sorry that you have lost a friend, Yeager was certainly a special person and will be missed here in Florida. The conflicts over the rights of representation, to her images etc. are only going to be significant to Wikipedia if they are covered in the press. You may email me at the link on the left side of this page under tools or at this link email MrBill3 if you want to find a way to send me newspaper clippings (or scans of them). As a note, sources are not required to be in English. I don't understand German but could get help with translation. An important thing to remember is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles should reflect that. I encourage you to register an account (WP:SIGNUP) on Wikipedia and participate in improving the encyclopedia (WP:EDITING). The project could use improvement in it's global perspective (WP:WORLDVIEW) and coverage of the arts. I am sure you have knowledge and expertise that could be a valuable contribution. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The Autism Matrix
Do you by an off-chance have access to page 238, which is not available in the Google Books preview? CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Specific questions, content? I will post some snippets here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Got an amazon acct? Preview may be available without acct, I dunno. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yah, I have an Amazon account. Based on page 237, it looked like 238 might have some crucial content is all. CorporateM (Talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You can preview that page from amazon. I posted intertwining quote already. Here's relevant content:

First sentence to finish para on 237, "The idea, however, was never able to get traction in mainstream circles."

ARRI started 1987. "Think tank" convened 1994 with Baker and Pangborn led to formation of DAN! "a coalition of parents, health practitioners and researchers interested in 'biomedical treatements' for autism." First meeting 1995 bi annual 2001. "DAN! is certainly one of the major proponents of the theory [vaccines can cause autism] as well as of detoxification therapies." Some discussion of Rimlands "most significant legacy" an alternative network attempting to subordinate "virtual witnessing" to ethical vocation of parental response to autism. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see the pages on Amazon, but your excerpts should be good enough. I have started a draft here if you want to take a look. That would cut the article from 44 to 12 sources and from 2,000 to 680 words, removing a lot of promo, synth and brief mentions. That draft is exclusively based on a culling of the sources in the current article and I also need to do my own research for anything missing, especially to fill in the basic of their current activities and what is it they actually do now. Note it clearly identifies that the treatments offered by DAN were not accepted by the mainstream medical field and that doctors told the Chicago Tribune they felt it was dangerous and misleading. It also explains that ARI itself changed its views and discontinued DAN. Although the sources are scarce, I did see some sources that explicitly said that ARI was "prominent" or "significant" in one way or another, which suggests they may in fact be notable. CorporateM (Talk) 21:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings . Thanks for the work you have done. I was wondering if the talk space is the appropriate place to build a draft rewrite. I was thinking a sandbox would be more appropriate. This would allow a talk page on the development of the rewrite. It would also allow for a move that preserves the edit history or a history merge after a copy paste. You may be more familiar or a quick consult with an admin might be helpful (pinging ).
 * I also think we need to post a notice that a new draft is being worked on at the talk page. A notice to the projects is probably also in order.
 * I think this would also be the appropriate time for a COI disclosure. My suggestion would be a template notice on the talk page of the existing article and on the sandbox draft talk page. As you have not edited the existing article you may not want to put one on that talk page. I'm sure you are better versed in the policy and know that a notice on your user page or other disclosures are adequate/appropriate. I am not clear if this falls under the paid editing policy. I leave those questions up to you. I would like to know if it is OK with you if I refer to you as "an editor with a disclosed COI" when posting notices that a draft rewrite is being worked on. This would only be for the first time I refer to this in a particular forum, thereafter I would use your username. If you prefer not that is actually fine by me. I think your userpage and posts are clear enough.
 * Once we've got it set up correctly (I think your draft should be moved to preserve your edit history, but as it is entirely your work, again your choice) I will comment in the appropriate talk space and work on editing the draft. BTW real life beckons and there may be some delay. I may also take some time to compose my thoughts, sources and edits. I'm hoping that in working on the draft we can both (as well as other editors who may become involved) edit boldly without the contention that happens when working in mainspace. I'm thinking 3RR and EW would not apply. For example if I substantially revise and you think it is not the best way and revert, then me putting some stuff back in and you removing some of it again etc. would be understood as working progress. I don't know policy on this but I assume by working in a sandbox...
 * Again thank you for the work you have done already and all your contributions to the encyclopedia. I look forward to collaborating on this and wherever else our paths may cross. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'll go ahead and add disclosures/Talk page notifications/etc. I was a little sloppy in this case, because I wasn't expecting to do any actual substantive work for them. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding long-term collaboration, I think for a marginally notable org like this, any half-decent stub should be fine, or a merge would still be equally valid. I don't really have the time/resources/interest in getting super-involved and even if I do support them long-term typically the rule of thumb I have is to interject only every 6-12 months to avoid WP:COIMICRO, once the article has settled a bit. Also, in areas where I feel are nuanced and where editors may reasonably disagree, I typically just abstain anyway (see here for example). So I wouldn't expect any long belabored debate between us - such debates are better held between disinterested editors. However, I do always encourage folks to stalk me if they like and work on other articles, so long as they are not harassing me. Since I participate almost exclusively on Talk, it's a constant effort to find editors that will review my work, make article-space edits, etc. and get involved in random articles where they may not have an innate, organic interest and I must find a willing volunteer to collaborate with in every case (many company pages are basically abandoned). Regarding the draft, I just got some comments from ARI, which did include some valid minor clarifications. I'll probably submit a Request Edit later today or tomorrow. CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the article. At this point I am tempted to just do a page move of your draft. It seems pretty close to an acceptable article and editing could be done by the community in the usual fashion. I would be willing to keep an eye on the talk page and respond to your input, especially as you have indicated it would be fairly minimal.

I find myself more than a little surprised to say I may stalk you a little and facilitate the inclusion of some of your proposed content. Although I am a staunch adversary of advocacy I am more than anything interested in the best possible articles. Inclusion of appropriate material and a genuine reflection of NPOV are very important. I have great respect for your editing (writing) abilities and adherence to PAG. I think your compliance with policy combined with input from other involved editors would result in changes that are improvements. I remain curious as to the exact nature of your COI but that is a curiosity and really not my business.

Post a note on the talk page of the ARI article when you are done tinkering with the draft and I will propose to do the move, pending consensus. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In most cases I use the ambiguous term COI, because the circumstances are unique in each case. For example, I do not atm have a formal arrangement with ARI and am working on a "we'll figure it out later" basis. I have also been known to do pro-bono work. My rule of thumb is to help everyone who genuinely needs it and nobody who doesn't regardless of financing.


 * Regarding long-term, if the page is moved to DAN, which I think is probably the right direction to go, I will recommend to ARI that they not purchase a subscription for long-term maintenance/monitoring. However, if you need something, I'm always available in my volunteer role.


 * I don't think you can reasonably expect incremental improvement to the article following the Talk page approval format, which inevitably leads to a requirement for a near-perfect draft to appease any possible criticism. Therefore, the only thing to do is make it perfect before it is incorporated. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, I don't know if you're interested in a subject like this, but regarding stalking me, the McKinsey & Company page has been the most difficult for me to find an editor with sustained interest in. The source material on them is very vast and polarizing; an editor could write a perfectly well-sourced attack piece or promo piece. By chance, the article happened to have previously attracted someone with strong negative views about the organization who wrote an attack piece and over the last year or so I've been doing most of what you see on the page now. However, editors mostly come and go for a section or two and then lose interest, because the article/project is so large. You can see my latest edit request here. CorporateM (Talk) 17:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your transparency/sharing. I agree that the draft will need to meet pretty high standards. I think a move to DAN may be appropriate, but I would suggest ARI be redir to DAN. I have to admit that I don't think I have enough interest in McKinsey & Co. to manage handling your request. My interests on WP are primarily in Medicine (the research contributes to my professional development) and Fringe/Skepticism (an active hobby of mine). I'd be happy to take a look at simpler requests or anything in my areas of interest. Thanks for all your work on ARI/DAN and all your other contributions to WP. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a review
I am adding book reviews for Voodoo Science, I need to get full access to Wendy M. Grossman's review found here. This may be on highbeam. Do you have access to this? If you have access is there any chance you can summarize it in a few lines so it can be added in? Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Defeat Autism Now!
It sounds like there is a consensus (ish) formed through discussion that is emerging if not already there. I was wondering what your thoughts were RE next steps. I'm not sure everyone is going to circle back to vote on the alternate proposal and I noticed the discussion has already gotten confusing. For example user:FreeRangeFrog voted in favor of the original proposal for an ARI page, though at the time of his/her voting the draft they were reviewing was a DAN! page and I presume they didn't know there were two proposals running. I get the sense the discussion has run its course and consensus could be interpreted from the discussion without requiring a formalized vote, per WP:NOTBURO. Though I did notice user:Blue Rasberry has not confirmed whether the updated draft addresses their feedback RE primary sources and it might be worthwhile to check in with him first. CorporateM (Talk) 17:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!
Thank you. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flim-Flam!
(Copied from User talk:Gronk Oz): Hello! Your submission of Flim-Flam! at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Somatotype and constitutional psychology article
Hi MrBill3,

I'm writing to bring to your attention that there continues to be attempts to censor/remove criticism of Sheldon's somatotype theory, which I noted you had made attempts to prevent earlier this year. I have also e-mailed Wikipedia to notify them and reverted the changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatotype_and_constitutional_psychology 64.111.172.6 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see you were able to respond quickly to this. Given how rapidly my change was reverted by this same abuser, it's obviously being monitored by someone. Whose attention can we bring this to? 64.111.172.6 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For repeated changes, without adequate discussion reaching consensus or supported by reliable sources with due weight, a report can be made at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Violations of the 3 revert rule are prioritized there but edit warring in general can be addressed there. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sam Parnia IP problem
Hi. Just to let you know that I'd reported the IP for vandalism, but have asked that my submission be disregarded as you've taken it to 3RRR. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sam Parnia
On this page, a same IP keeps doing the same vandalism i.e. deleting a certain source and inserting original research. Is there a template to warn this user? Sorry I do not know how to do this. Goblin Face (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Greetings . There are quite a number of warning templates. I use WP:TWINKLE to facilitate warning/notification as it automates much of the process. The user warning applies to deleting contents and has five different forms. The template  is for edit warring. On the documentation page of the ew template you will find a rather extensive list of warning templates. A complete table with explanations can be found at WP:Template messages/User talk namespace. If a page is consistently being changed without discussion and consensus you can apply for page protection at WP:RPP. If edit warring continues after warning then you can file a report at WP:3RRNB (the edit warring notice board). A notice at the Fringe Theories Notice Board can also get some assistance. Making sure a warning or several warnings have been posted to the user/ip's talk page is the correct first step. I really find Twinkle most helpful for this. I often use the welcome feature which offers a variety of templates including some for a variety of issues. In this case I would probably suggest  . Best of luck, I know this can be frustrating and become a time suck, but I have found the process generally effective. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, I will take a note of those templates. With the Parnia article though I noticed the user has been using at least three IP addresses to remove the same material. They do not seem to be doing it regularly but monthly but still might be a problem if nobody is watching the article. Goblin Face (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a heads up to let you know that unfortunately this issue is still going on. Goblin Face (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring filing done here. May be of interest to and . - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. I'm afraid I didn't check your talk page properly and left a message below regarding it. I'd say your submission speaks for itself, but I'll keep my eye on it in case the IP chimes in. I did cite check the removed content carefully to establish that the source being quoted was reliable, so if the IP wants to challenge it, I'm well stocked with evidence that Keith Augustine has serious credentials. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Materialization (paranormal), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess somebody missed WP:DTR - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. That wasn't missed, but ignored.  It's not a guideline or a policy.  It's an essay, and a controversial essay at that.  It's not a policy or a guideline.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment was sardonic. The editor has engaged in tendentious behavior link, diff and edit warring diff resulting in a 24h block. The editor has continued to edit in violation of PAG, escalating to personal attacks diff, diff. I wonder how it is that you are a spokesperson for the actions of another editor. My understanding of policy is that editors are responsible for their own actions. If the editor who placed that template "ignored" DTR they are free to state that themselves. Why would you come to my talk page to explain the actions of another editor ? Do you also have explanations for that editor's personal attacks, edit warring, IDHT and apparent lack of understanding of policy? - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I came to your talk page concerning the request for redaction or suppression. If you were being sarcastic, I understand, but will note that on the [[Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic]].  Enough.  If you have an issue with a tendentious editor, you can deal with it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No big deal, just thought if you were going to jump in on the interaction between other editors perhaps you should have some background on the situation. I'm sure the involved editors saw the sarcasm/cynicism in my post and for those who did not I didn't think it was an overreach to refer to an essay anyway. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Requests for Redaction or Suppression
Please do not post requests for redaction or suppression at noticeboards. This calls attention to the offending material before it can be removed. Even if the material has been deleted by ordinary deletion, it is still visible (e.g., to trolls) via the history until it is removed. Email those requests to administrators who have expressed willingness to redact or to the suppression team. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not request revdel or oversight. I brought something to the attention of administrators that I felt was of concern. The responsibility for requesting oversight for information publicly posted that an editor wants suppressed lies with the editor who posted that information (and wants it suppressed). I was not comfortable using my email on their behalf, nor did I know if the editor wanted this suppressed nor as I mentioned if an exception applied (with some further reading I realize there is essentially no exception to the privacy policy). I am not responsible for the inappropriate posting by an IP nor for the visibility of content on WP nor the actions of "trolls" (while competency is required, I was not the editor violating policy originally). What I did do was mention that there was something on one noticeboard at the ANI noticeboard without making any mention of the editor involved or linking to the post (I perhaps should have researched policy first, for which I apologize). I did this as a courtesy to an editor and as a conscientious member of the community. Would it have been better to remain silent and allow time for other editors to jump on this and for archives and mirrors to pick this up? In the future I will email an oversight admin I feel comfortable in engaging on email. I do regret any problem I may have caused and recognize that I may have not acted in the best way to maintain the very important policies on privacy and harassment, both of which I take seriously (along with most other PAGs ;}). I appreciate you bringing this to my attention as I do my best to be aware of and follow policy in all my actions on WP and I believe that every editor deserves appropriate treatment (particularly a new editor who may not have been aware of the visibility of history, availability of oversight, right to privacy etc.) - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. However, pointing out an inappropriate or possibly inappropriate posting on a noticeboard can result in a Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it, and a better understanding of related policy now. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)