User talk:Neuromancer~enwiki/Archive

Recent changes to lead of HIV article
Hi there. I've begun a new section at Talk:HIV discussing my rationale for reverting your recent edits for a second time. Before reinstating your edits, please be sure that the new material you're proposing is supported by editorial consensus. Thanks, Emw (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see talk page guideline
Neuromancer, regarding your edits and talk page comments at HIV, I would encourage you to please see WP:TALK. The talk page is not a forum for discussion of AIDS denialism or even the science of HIV/AIDS. Please know that I will remove any further abuses of the talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation warning
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Chat warning
Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re
Neuromancer, in response to your question on my talk page, no, there is nothing personal to my criticism of your behaviour on Wikipedia. You are, in my opinion, advancing a fringe point of view beyond due weight, and you are soapboxing on the HIV talk page. You have plagiarised from several sources, without giving citations at all, and have refused to admit this. You have created an article with substantial amounts of trivia (lists of contest winners) about what I consider to be a non-notable company, leading me to question what your connection with this company might be (please see WP:COI). I don't know you, so there's nothing personal, but I would much prefer that you stop using Wikipedia for promotional reasons or as a forum for your beliefs.

In future, if you have questions about virology and immunology methods, please direct them to the Science Reference Desk. Demands for a single citation to establish that HIV exists in Africa or is in fact a virus or has been isolated, etc., should be directed to more appropriate sites on the internet, of which, as I am sure you know, there are many. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a forum for AIDS denialism. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made some improvements to the Fatcat article and noticed that much of the information contained in it indicates an apparently intimate personal knowledge of the motivations and histories of the individuals involved. A large part of this has been removed as potential WP:BLP violation. Please take care in future to add information to Wikipedia only when it is available in reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

HIV dissent
The talkpage Talk:AIDS denialism has several times discussed the scope of the article, leading to consensus that denial of the connection between HIV and AIDS is properly included at that article. Please discuss there if you think a spin-out article is warranted. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, someone changed your new page to a REDIRECT to the old AIDS Denialism page within hours. Let me know when the new page stabilizes and I will participate.

It sounds to me like some people have seriously adamant positions, which I'm guessing comes from having lost a loved one. Hard to believe that scientists would insist so much on THE answer. Martindo (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments could be clearer, at least in the Talk pages (which is all I can see). You challenge testing processes, but I don't see mention of the variety of alternative views. In particular, you omit the distinction between denying the role of HIV and accepting HIV as one of several causes (cofactor hypothesis).

Sorry but this process is too fast and too obdurate on all sides to appeal to me as a participant. I find it a little scary to see an edit war that time stamps suggest can be measured in minutes. What exactly is so threatening about having alternative ideas online for a few days, so that more than a handful of people can judge POV fork and other allegations of WP policy breach? Martindo (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. Content Dispute
Vandalism requires a desire to damage the encyclopedia. Although you are damaging the encyclopedia by placing content that is factually false and pushes a (harmful) tiny-minority PoV, I do not accuse you of vandalism, because you believe the enyclopedia will be better if it says what you believe. You should grant me the same courtesy. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

 * Neuro, you've made it very clear at this point that you are not looking to discuss anything. You are looking for people to agree with you. Anyone who doesn't is promptly told that they are wrong, you are right. You've also made it clear that because of this, no one will be able to convince you that you're wrong. Now, maybe you're not wrong. Maybe you're completely right. But at some point, you have to realize that you're arguing with the community that developed the original research policy and the three-revert rule. You are seeking redress from administrators who are philosophically incapable of agreeing with your edits or your behavior. So you have a choice. You can continue to tilt at the windmill until you're banned from Wikipedia, or your can learn to assume good faith, resolve disputes, and drop the assumption that you know more about Wikipedia policies than those who have been here for years. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's my issue. I attempt to contribute to the Wiki. Before my work is up for two hours, it has been unilaterally wiped down to a redirect. No discussion, no time period, no anything. Just gone. Who am I supposed to resolve a dispute with if they don't even notify me they have a dispute. How can a dispute be resolved unilaterally by one editor in a matter of an hour or less? Can you understand my frustration? I am trying to contribute what I, and others, feel is notable information. I have spent hours researching, referencing, and editing prior to posting anything. Then it gets wiped without an articulated reason minutes or hours later. Neuromancer (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that you extend to me the same level of respect. Please review WikiProject Alternative Views before trying to wholesale delete information because you do not share the same viewpoint. The purpose of Alternative HIV viewpoints is to present a notable viewpoint which lacks widespread acceptance. There is no reason to delete it.
 * Alternative views: This project aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant "alternative views"—those theories, hypotheses, conjectures, and speculations which, though notable, lack widespread acceptance, and which may challenge a "dominant view" which does have such acceptance. The project encompasses alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities.
 * "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."

Neuromancer, Someguy is an old AIDS orthodoxy guy, you will not get justice from him. I recognize his username from old discussions. They block anyone that tried to change anything on the AIDS-HIV pages, they are thrilled with reverting everything you do so that you are blocked, but they don't get blocked because they trade off amongst themselves. It's bullying in numbers. A reasonable, good-faith editor can go nuts here. When you are allowed to edit again, maybe you can help with the House of Numbers page, in which they will not allow even a normal synopsis (see my attempted, perfectly neutral edits). Thanks. Mister Hospodar (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no cabal. JoeSmack Talk 20:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The above comment is a clear violation of good faith. That is just harassment, and gloating. Neuromancer (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't meant to be a violation of AGF, harassment or gloating::. JoeSmack Talk 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly came off that way. Perhaps thinking prior to making an edit would be advisable in the future. I am not trying to make enemies. I am just trying to make the Wiki a better place. I am following the rules, and every rule I comply with, someone else violates and then cites Ignore_all_rules like it's a game or something. It is frustrating, but I won't give up... You are all stuck with me. Neuromancer (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well regardless of your perceptions, following them with snarky comments won't help your case. Removing deletion tags is definitely not alright - if the deletion is unwarranted then it would reflect in the comment section for it. I don't see a lot of people using WP:IAR, it is mostly WP:MEDRS + WP:POVFORK. JoeSmack Talk 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The initial delete tag was malformed. Look at the history. That is what I removed. As far as my "Snarky" comments, I am not treating anyone here differently than I am being treated. I get a "Snarky" comment every hour like clockwork. I never get any actual answers. I just references to policy pages that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. As far the article goes, it falls under WikiProject Alternative Views. It doesn't have to conform to WP:MEDRS or WP:POVFORK guidelines. Incidentally, read WP:POVFORK and then read WikiProject Alternative Views. The whole idea is that they are not widely accepted viewpoints. That's why the project is there. Neuromancer (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are getting answers. It's just that you don't like those answers, so you're alternately ignoring them and asking the other parent. That tends to annoy people. If you are honestly open to understanding how Wikipedia works, then consider the following. WikiProject Alternative Views is a voluntary association of editors with similar interests. It has no "authority" per se, and it most definitely does not supersede core Wikipedia policies like neutral point of view, POV-forking, and reliable sourcing. A lot of your posts come across as frantically throwing around links and acronyms without bothering to try to understand the way Wikipedia is actually meant to work. This is intended to be a serious, respectable reference work. How many serious, respectable reference works or encyclopedias are you aware of that even acknowledge the existence of a group as tiny-fringe as AIDS denialists, much less give them their own article? The topic is already given excess, undue weight here. MastCell Talk 04:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Neuromancer, I did notify you here following my redirect. Anyway, I will be around Talk:AIDS denialism when your block expires, so see you there. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't get it... Are you just screwing with me? Neuromancer (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was in reply to your post of 21:21 last night. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent Block
I understand why you have blocked me, and humbly request that you reconsider the block for the following reasons:

Hipocrit made this initial edit He decided, without any discussion, to blank the page and forward to another article. Which I reverted

He then attempted to nominate the page for deletion, but did it improperly.  Which I then removed

He then made the following edits, and in the comments attacked personally calling me a conspiracy theorist. These edits were wholesale deletes of information.      Which I reverted

He then added the following:  Which I removed. Which he then reverted. Which I then reverted.

This is all prior to Hipocrit making a single entry on the talk page.

Then he reported to you for a block. The article in question falls under the Alternative views guidelines. There will be information that is not mainstream or widely accepted. That is the purpose of the article. Deleting the information contained in it is not beneficial to the Wiki, in fact it is detrimental, and form of censorship.

For the reasoning above, I request that you unblock me, and at the very least, issue a warning to Hipocrit.

Thank you in advance for your time and understanding. Neuromancer (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My AFD tag was not malformed. My final edit, which you reverted, said "see talk," because I was posting to talk. You didn't check talk - you just reverted. Hipocrite (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no flaw with the AFD notice here. You should be allowed to edit again soon enough and can discuss it at AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At the time I reverted the changes, the user had not nominated the page for deletion. I believe you nominate the page, and then post the notice. When I reviewed AFD, there was no nomination, nor was there a talk entry, which is why I reverted. After he actually nominated the article for deletion, I did not remove the header. Neuromancer (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's actually the other way around. See WP:AFDHOWTO. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Neuromancer (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative HIV viewpoints, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Alternative HIV viewpoints. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Verbal chat  11:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring straight off a block is not a great thing to do. I suggest you self revert, to show good faith, and put your arguments to the talk page and the AfD. Verbal chat  11:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons warning.
You have made an edit to Dennis Ketcham that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, in the article you don't care about that you're reverting to try to annoy me. Hipocrite (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

re afd on Denialism
Hi, Thanks for the support in the discussion. I would like to ask you to refrain from arguing from the position of AIDS Denialism being imprecise etc. I believe that it distracts from the overall discussion from Wikipedia policy. In all honesty if anything it will make people !vote keep just to piss you off. The core problem, as I see it, is that the only way to get at a definition of 'denialism' from current sources is to extract and synthesize characteristics attributed to 'AIDS Denialists' and 'Holocaust Denialists' etc. Best, Unomi (talk) 12:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree with you. It does appear that I have made some enemies with regard to the "denialism" editors crowd. I will, as we say in London "Piss off!" and leave the discussion in your hands. Neuromancer (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
A warm welcome. Glad you found our group.

{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; cellpading=30" align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
 * colspan="2" |

Ikip (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alternative HIV viewpoints
A strong argument is not a personal attack. If you wish to stay at WP, you will find, as I have, that sometimes people have strong views, and that is OK. See WP:NAM. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AIDS denialism
Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you have any legitimate concerns about the wording or neutrality of AIDS denialism, concerns that are rooted in policy, please raise those concerns at the talk page. Since no one can read your mind, simply adding a boilerplate to the top of the article doesn't help anyone resolve the dispute. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Content
Copy/Pasting content straight from IMDB into articles, as you did at Kristian Ayre, and attempting to claim it is reliable, or accurate is not appropriate. Further, the direct copy/pasting you did was not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines regarding both style and trivia. The edit has been reverted. If it your intention to "rescue" the article, I'd suggest actually demonstrating that she had received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, rather than trying to copy/paste content from non-reliable sources. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion when you are the only author
If you would like, you can put db-author on this page and someone on the clean-up squad will wander by to delete it in a few hours. I also added User Sandbox to the / subpage to indicate that it is a user page for developing content rather than an encyclopedia article. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Neuromancer (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood
Victims implies a value judgement. It is a POV word we should avoid. Casualties does not mean dead. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/casualty Hasan is an alleged murderer, but not really an alleged gunman - no one is disputing that he was the gunman. He will not be tried for being a gunman, he will be tried most likely for murder. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Oh and you mean "duplicated" not "duplicitous" - the latter means deceiving. Rich Farmbrough, 09:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC).
 * No, I know what duplicitous means, but it's late, and I was trying to be humorous. Apparently I failed. Neuromancer (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Webster's defines victime as: one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions 
 * casualties is defined as: serious or fatal accident


 * wiktionary is user editable, and not considered a RS. Neuromancer (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not using it as an RS. I would be if I was citing it in the article but I'm not.
 * None of Webster's definitions of "casualty" are exclusively applied to fatalities.  (Webster's New World College Dictionary)
 * A victim has to be a victim of something - usually an agent with real, imputed or anthropomorphised intent to cause them to be "injured, destroyed, or sacrificed". So by using the phrase we impute intent. Secondly we don't describe (nor should we) Hasan as a "victim" of the police officer that shot him, although his injury was prima face a sacrifice to save the lives of others. Rich Farmbrough, 09:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC).


 * Nor do we refer to Hasan as a casualty. The alleged shooter definitely had to have an intent behind pointing a loaded firearm at a human, and pulling the trigger, then doing the same to 33 more people. Ipso Facto, the shooter had the real intent to cause them to be injured, or destroyed, thereby "victimizing" them. Some of those victims became casualties of the shooting. To categorize the injured as "casualties" is confusing to say the least. Neuromancer (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are presumably being funny again? Concise means short. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Hood_shooting&action=historysubmit&diff=324439059&oldid=324438944 uses three times as many syllables to say the same thing in an POV and inaccurate way. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC).


 * brief in form but comprehensive in scope Neuromancer (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead means dead. You can argue about casualties and we can avoid that word but it widely includes injured - we should not use it to mean dead. Rich Farmbrough, 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Nor indeed should we use "casualties" to mean "injured" as another editor has done. Rich Farmbrough, 10:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

One last time
I'm going to ask you one last time to stop canvassing partisan editors. In the past few days, you've violated nearly every behavioral policy this site has. Recent history leads me to the conclusion that you're more interested in pushing a narrow agenda at the expense of this site's behavioral and content policies, and that you're not particularly interested in learning how this place actually works, or what its goals and standards are. I would love to be proven wrong. On the other hand, I'm not endlessly patient, and if you continue along your present path then I will probably ask for a more formal review of your behavior, since to date it has not seemed to me to be appropriate for a collaborative, serious reference work. MastCell Talk 04:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how or why you feel that me inquiring as to a user's status is "canvassing." I am not, contrary to popular belief, an "AIDS denialist." To the contrary, my uncle died of the disease, and I have spent a great deal of time researching the topic, as well as others. While I understand that you are adamant regarding certain issues, and that our viewpoints to no coincide with one another, this is not a reason to attack me personally.


 * Just as you, and the others in your cabal, post notices on one another's talk pages regarding similar interests and concerns such as the one left by Verbal on your talk page, I have done the same. I have not asked that a particular viewpoint be shared with me, only that they have expressed previous interest in a particular topic, and that the current discussion may be of further interest. Why is it acceptable for the various cabals of WP to behave in a particular manner, and then turn around and point fingers when others behave in a similar fashion?


 * As I have said in previous posts, I will work diligently on making sure that my arguments are discussed thoroughly prior to edits being made in the future. Those discussions have not, nor will they, personally attack anyone. Just as some have adamant opinions which reflect their POV, I have mine. The point is that I am working in good faith to make the Wiki a better place, and any accusations to the contrary will be interpreted as a personal attack.


 * Also understand that I am aware that you are an admin. I understand that you can act arbitrarily, or in unison with other admins, to prevent me from being active on WP. I trust that as an admin, you would use your powers to push your personal opinions on others. Please refrain from threatening me in the future. Neuromancer (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * MastCell is not threatening you. MastCell is warning you in a very patient and long-suffering manner, in my opinion, in light of your recent behaviour. No editor here cares whether you are (or label yourself) an AIDS denialist or rethinker or dissident. We care only that you are promoting a single-minded agenda by treading roughly on Wikipedia policies. That must stop. I, too, intend to ask for review, especially considering your repeated problems with unsourced copying and pasting, which I see have now caused problems at another article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear that as I am involved in a dispute with you, and have formed a rather detailed view of your contributions here, I would not take any administrative action toward you. I am strongly considering asking other, uninvolved administrators to review your behavior, because I find your protestations of good faith undercut by your actions and I find your behavior thus far unsuited to a collaborative attempt to build a serious, respectable reference work. On the other hand, I recognize that this site's expectations and policies are not intuitive - I struggled with them when I started out here, although I didn't have the handicap of being driven to push a fringe agenda - so I'd like to be sure I've at least attempted to explain my concerns before complaining about your behavior. Hence the post. To be clear, I have no special authority or status here. It's entirely possible that if I lodge a complaint about your behavior, no one will care. They may even think I'm being heavy-handed with you - Wikipedia's system of dispute resolution is a bit arbitrary, to put it mildly. But ask yourself why you're here - is it to help build a serious, respectable reference work? Would you be happy if our articles on HIV/AIDS ended up looking like those of Encyclopedia Brittanica, or Medline Plus, or those of other serious, respectable reference works? Or are you here to push for greater visibility and acceptance for a specific, fringe viewpoint on HIV/AIDS? If the latter, then I can tell you right now that you're in the wrong venue and you're wasting your time, but most people need to find that out for themselves. So do as you like. MastCell Talk 05:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your eloquent, well thought out, and carefully worded response. I will respond in kind of course.


 * I very much want to assist in building a respectable reference work. I find that many of the articles, in my humble opinion of course, currently on the Wikipedia are very much POV slanted. You mentioned Britannica, which I have used and trusted for many decades now. There entry for HIV is as follows:
 * Main
 * virus - in full human immunodeficiency virus - retrovirus that attacks and gradually destroys the immune system, leaving the host unprotected against infection. For detailed information on HIV and disease, see AIDS.
 * When referencing the AIDS entry in the same encyclopedia, there is no mention of "denialism" or denialist." In fact, nowhere in the volumes of Britannica is there a reference to either of these fake words. The lead for AIDS states:
 * transmissible disease of the immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). HIV is a lentivirus (literally meaning “slow virus”; a member of the retrovirus family) that slowly attacks and destroys the immune system, the body’s defense against infection, leaving an individual vulnerable to a variety of other infections and certain malignancies that eventually cause death. AIDS is the final stage of HIV infection, during which time fatal infections and cancers frequently arise.
 * So there is the bulk of my argument.


 * The Wikipedia is NOT Britannica. It is edited by everyone, and policed by those who care. Being that there is no budget for Wikipedia, such as with Britannica, there exists the opportunity for the inclusion of a wealth of information that would never see the light of day in a "normal" encyclopedia. This also allows for POV issues that do not come into play in a normal encyclopedia as anything even bordering on an "issue" is cut out.


 * You cannot look at an article on WP like Denialism, HIV denialism, or AIDS and even begin to compare them to a reliable encyclopedia. The POV slants are incredulous, inaccurate, and misleading.


 * In order to present a POV, you must include a equal reference to the opposing POV in order to create a balanced entry, or not include it at all. Otherwise you have censorship, and communism. You cannot control the flow of information. In order to be impartial, you must allow the presentation of all information. I am not saying that they require equal weight in the same articles, but a reference to a separate article is most certainly appropriate.


 * So yes, I aim to improve the Wikipedia, and to bring it in line with a reliable encyclopedia idea of inclusion and balance. Neuromancer (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that this discourse is getting significantly more civilized, thank you on both your parts. To Neuro's recent comment, i'd like to say again that the Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must give equal validity to minority views. To the scientific mainstream, HIV denialism is not valid, so an equal reference to the mainstream shouldn't be there. And i'm definitely a little doubtful about the communism thing too ;). JoeSmack Talk 08:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I should have said "implementations of communism," as communism has never been truly realized in an society. What I was referring to is the use of censorship by Nation States claiming to be communist, such as the former USSR and China. For example... "Modern day China, more than almost any other country in the world, severely restricts its citizens freedom of speech and expression.".
 * I am not suggesting that there be equal weight given to "HIV conspiracy theories" in the HIV article, but there should be an article, such as Alternative HIV viewpoints that clearly details these dissident beliefs. Whether they are accurate or not is irrelevant. They are noteworthy, and referenced extensively in peer reviewed articles. Granted, there are more fringe references available, and I have never pushed them. I have however attempted to include the actual references for these points of view in an attempt to create a reference point for those wishing to research these theories.
 * To this day, there are peer reviewed article being published such as this one, AIDS: It's the bacteria stupid which was published just last year, regarding alternative theories to the HIV=AIDS dilemma. Most of the current issues with HIV=AIDS is that there have been no conclusive studies showing the link. There has been no success with creating a vaccine. Some people, including Montagnier, feel that there may be cofactors involved that have yet to be fully researched. This seems like relevant information to include somewhere. Neuromancer (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well communism aside (i'll peek at that link in the morning)...calling them HIV conspiracy theories, alternative HIV viewpoints or AIDS denialism, etc, isn't the issue, it's the content of the info that is considered not valid by the scientific mainstream. I appreciate that you don't lob bad fringe refs at the issue, very much so, but the criticisms of some of them you have, regardless of them being peer reviewed, I hope aren't falling on deaf ears. Those articles, which I guess are still being published, really suffer from some specious and fallible logic (confirmation over refutation, moving the goalpost back when being refuted themselves, etc.). Can you picture where/why that might be concluded? As for Montagnier, I'm actually warming to, I dunno, something more about him, but not in any of the ways you've presented thus far. JoeSmack Talk 09:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the criticisms posed by the editors of these articles. My point is that those critiques are invalid. They are only valid when the scientific community dissents on them. When a theory is dis-proven, it is done so by further research, and publications. So if a particular reference has been counter pointed in an equally distinguished publication, then there should be no problems providing that source.


 * Simply stating, "These are outdated" or "these have been rejected" means nothing without the citations to actual published resources. If they exist, then cite them. If they do not, then the references that I have numerous times referred to, should stand on there own. Most of the references that I have used, such as those in Alternative HIV viewpoints, refer to actual studies in which actual data has been collected and published. Such as the information regarding false positive HIV results. There has been nothing published which contradicts these references, and therefore, they should be able to be used. Am I making any sense? Neuromancer (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.” Neuromancer (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Oh, i totally think the amount in HIV is fair, proportional and without bias. And the burden of proof is on the person adding or revising content, and challenges go to the talk page after reverting them. Also, you cut off one of those quotes right before it stated, "although content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below."

Anyways, also to what you said up there after I went to sleep - yes, you are making sense. But this is the kind of rife holes in these supposedly good studies and see, in addition to using them wrong. This revision here, the Giraldo study. Man, that's gotta be some of the poorest science I've ever heard. He didn't think that a third possibility would be confounded or inaccurate test results? Was that thing peer review and open for scrutiny? I thought that was incredibly easy to see. And then using his 'suggestions'/'speculations' in the article is inappropriate for wikipedia, and exactly what that field of researchers is knocked on for. JoeSmack Talk 17:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(Oh, and before i run out the door, i mean his scientific method being inaccurate/confounded, not the ELISA test). JoeSmack Talk 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article listed by Neuromancer above as an example of a "peer reviewed article" questioning the role of HIV in AIDS was not peer reviewed and appeared in a "journal" specifically mentioned by Wikipedia policy as an unreliable source. There is no support for AIDS denialism in the (reliable) scientific literature, no matter how much synthesis one employs. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring and 3-revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. MastCell Talk 05:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And please take a look at our policy on inappropriate canvassing while you're at it . MastCell Talk 05:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your implied question at User talk:MastCell, the relevant sections are Canvassing and Canvassing. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To reiterate my edit summary here, please be aware that you have made more than three reverts to HIV dissent in under 24 hours. This is in violation of the three-revert rule sufficient but not necessary bright line definition of WP:edit warring. Please desist before you are blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I get off reverting to the redirect because it's the only policy compling option. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neuromancer,

You will never get anywhere with the likes of Keepcalmandcarryon, Mastcell, Nunh-huh, etc. Going into the archives of some of the articles here on AIDS and HIV, I found that some of these people have been working, full-time it seems, on keeping these pages biased for years, and that they don't allow any edits which provide alternative information to the orthodox theory that HIV=AIDS, or anyone attached to these theories. They can be illogical, bullying, they will name-call, they will call any persons with honest questions denialists, and they will use any and every strategy no matter how ugly to keep these pages the way they want them to read. They don't allow edits they don't like to stay up for more than 30 minutes, and their tactic is to bully and threaten people until they give up. Of course people do give up, because they become exhausted and worn down as nothing they try to correct will stay up. Interestingly enough, some of these people also police pages on subjects such as Aspartame and alternative medicine. It's frightening how the AIDS orthodoxy doesn't want the public to know the facts. Most horrifying is the effect on AIDS patients themselves, who have the right to know everything there is to know and to make their own choices. I'd be interested to know your uncle's history, whether he was taking AIDS medications, what AIDS-related disease he actually died from, etc. AIDS has turned into a fear campaign - they give you a death sentence, and tell patients that if they stop the drugs that they will die. I wonder if these mercenary editors here have any idea that their policing of these pages could be leading to actual deaths in the world, as thousands of people take poison in a desperate attempt to save their lives, when they are not even sick. Mister Hospodar (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neuromancer, I've already spent many hours of my life trying to get in even small tiny points corrected, and they don't let ANYTHING stand. I would be happy to help you here if you do manage to create a page that stays up, but if we could get a few more people on board that would help tremendously. I've noticed that they take something down saying it was because of a "consensus" when there has been no such thing, and then they get an administrator that they know to get on their side. It's like a mad tea party, and there is no logic, no science, no fairness involve. It's the Wild West! I'm going to be very bust in the next few weeks unfortunately, but I will step in where I can. Mister Hospodar (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only concur what the others have said. Articles about denialism on the Wikipedia tend to attract anti-denialists who are even more stubborn than the denialists. No amount of effort will render the denialism articles more objective until the anti-denialists are all dead. In the beginning, one likes to think that reason will prevail, but you can't reason with the anti-denialists. Anything that doesn't fit in with their view is summarily removed and labelled as a non-mainstream view, and any reference that they don't like, they simply label as POV and that's that. I think the problem lies in the fact that denialist issues have certain historical developments in certain countries, and these anti-denialists deny any possibility that their own views may in fact be culture-specific. The best solution is to contribute where you can, within the constraints that these people place on the articles that they have hijacked, or to move on and contribute to other articles in the Wikipedia. You can shout yourself hoarse that you are not an AIDS-denialist yourself, and reiterate that HIV causes AIDS as many times as you want, but if you don't tow their specific party-line, they will oust you and your edits. -- leuce (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company
As you may have seen here, it is preferable to mark only one comment to a deletion discussion as keep or delete. Subsequent posts may be denoted comment or left bare; new discussion points tend towards the former, and long threaded discussion tends towards the latter. This applies even after relisting. It should have no effect on the debate either way, but it does make reading the debate easier for your fellow editors. Please refactor your latest comment to that discussion to avoid the appearance of double !voting. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that the discussion has been re-listed, and thereby required additional votes. Neuromancer (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The re-list is intended to encourage additional outside input from editors who have not already commented. It's not an invitation for editors who have already commented to reiterate their opinions. MastCell Talk 23:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That was clear from 2over's note. I was clarifying my intention, not arguing the point. Neuromancer (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured that that was the case, especially as Keepcalmandcarryon made the same thinko right there. As you can see from the history, they refactored to label their most recent contribution to that discussion as a comment. If you would do so as well, that would be great.
 * As a side point, as is explained in this guideline, AfD is a discussion or a debate, not a vote. In Wikipedia jargon, the compromise between ease of parsing opinions and encouraging an atmosphere of a collegial discussion rather than an adversarial vote is maintained through the creation of the !vote - a quick summary (keep or delete) followed by detailed reasoning. It is a bit of a kluge, but it helps to remind people that the balance of opinion is determined by weight of arguments based on policy, not weight of numbers. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SIG
Sorry to be posting here so often, but in light of your new signature page I wanted to be sure that you were aware of the guideline covering them, especially the section Signatures. It is vaguely annoying to have to scan past six lines of machine-readable text for every comment you make to a discussion. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 09:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring concerning your recent edit warring at Alternative HIV viewpoints. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Relay

 * If you have points you would like to make regarding the current discussion at AN/I, I would be happy to relay them for you during this block in accordance with the terms of WP:MEAT. Please leave a note on my talkpage including the exact text, or send me an email using the E-mail this user button in the toolbox in the left hand column if I do not appear to be currently active. I may be asleep or unavoidably busy, but I promise to take action as soon as I can. I do, however, reserve the right to refuse to pass on material that is antagonistic, uncivil, or otherwise unproductive. Please be judicious in your wording and try to carry out any extended conversations here rather than by proxy. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: your email - right, sorry, I had a thinko there. I will try to check this page regularly, but please do email me with any material you would like to contribute to that debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Posted under Response by Neuromancer, please let me know if you would like it somewhere else. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Changed the sig just for you. Neuromancer (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would the response not be better placed under your last comment regarding sanctions? Neuromancer (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Works for me - so moved. And thanks for the sig - it is a small thing, but much appreciated. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I forget that sometimes people use source text readers... Which I assume you are using for it to be an issue. It was a purdy sig though... Neuromancer (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I had a glance through the list at Adopt-a-User, the semi-formal project for what Frmatt suggested. None of them jump out at me as obviously unsuitable, though I would recommend finding someone with at least a few thousand edits who tends to be active during your preferred editing hours. I do not recognize most of those volunteers, obviously, but you might see if Bilby, Eusebeus, or Xeno would be interested. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit to Alternative HIV viewpoints
Before any freaks out at me for this edit, it wasn't me... Personally, I am conflicted as to the comment on the edit. While I appreciate someone attempting to assist me, I really don't need the extra attention, especially not from an anonymous edit. Why is all of this so damnably controversial anyway? Neuromancer (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales
"It stopped being just a website a long time ago. For many of us, most of us, Wikipedia has become an indispensable part of our daily lives."

Neuromancer (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Donor comments
 * "I'm a professional 'knowledge worker' & am often under time pressure -- I've come to rely on Wikipedia for intelligent & detailed overviews of unfamiliar topics."

Adoption
I will be happy to adopt you. Btilm 01:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that you have had a tough past and...wait. Other editors complained?  Tell me more please.  Btilm  04:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer
You commented at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, a thread which has now led to proposals that the user in question be topic banned or site banned, or that review of the issue be put aside while Neuromancer seeks a mentor. Your further input to that discussion would be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

your invite
See note on my talk page. Please erase this note from yours. Martindo (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Neuromancer/HIV
Do you have any intention of using User:Neuromancer/HIV as a sandbox? If you are going to actively to develop material that a) conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines, and b) stands a chance of meeting with approval or consensus from other editors, then it's probably a legitimate use of userspace. On the other hand, userspace is not a place to indefinitely archive one's preferred version of disputed content. If there's no clear indication that you plan to actively and collaboratively develop this page into encyclopedic material, then I will likely submit it for possible deletion. MastCell Talk 04:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Neuromancer/HIV
User:Neuromancer/HIV, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Neuromancer/HIV and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Neuromancer/HIV during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MastCell Talk 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rescue
Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediate
As a participant in WikiProject Alternative Views I invite you to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorcha Faal (2nd nomination). For an entity such as this who has gained global noterity to even be considered for deletion is beyond my understanding.Kmt885 (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)