User talk:Novangelis/Archive 2

Aspartame page
A complaint has been filed at AN/I located here. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice on the pages of all editors who have commented at Talk:Aspartame controversy in recent history. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've witnessed over an extended period your unfailing defense of the beleaguered Aspartame page. Your unfailing restoration of the conclusions of actual research is worthy of the Skeptical Enquirer. Don't give up the ship! Ornithikos (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Wikipedia, like science, should be skeptical—WP:V—but Wikipedia should be more than defense; I'm currently on on a push to increase content.Novangelis (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is silly pandering, as it is completely clear that the same skepticism applied to studies showing the dangers of Aspartame is not applied to the ones that don't indicate strong dangers. The study in which the FDA's standards were based on was said to be flawed, even by the FDA itself! What is this ridiculous anti-skepticism towards whatever the conventional attitude is? This is not supportive of actual science or skepticism, it's fully opposed to it. MattisOne (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Truth in Articles
I don't know if you would call this a new subject or not but I cannot find any answers elsewhere so maybe you can help. In the Article "Miracle Mineral Supplement" my name is use several times. It is beyond me how Wikipedia can use my name and not allow me to answer. The author of the Article seems to follow the guidelines about posting references that prove his data. Except none of the 17 references offer any data that proves his contentions. So I am trying to point this out, and then the Article is blocked from editing. This seems totally unfair. I cannot find any answers to this condition so far. Here is man who is critical to the extreme of making outright lies, then references the various lies with data that does not apply to the lie, and everyone believes him because he is showing references. (I couldn't get two of the references.) Then somehow the article is blocked so that it can't be edited. So I don't care in the slightest if I advertise this thing or not. I just don't want sick people to become discouraged by some extremely biased critic. I just don't want people to suffer and die because Wikipedia is telling people the wrong data. And so if this paragraph is supposed to be a discussion on improving the written article, then to add some truth to the article should in fact improve it. DataBishop (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are selling a bleach as a phony drug, as reported by reputable news outlets, reliable sources, Wikipedia will include it. Medical claims are held to a higher standard. No one gets to answer Wikipedia. Wikipedia is compiled from reputable sources, the type that tend not to dedicate much space to the claims of people who profess wanting to alleviate suffering, then trick vulnerable people into swallowing corrosive chemicals with no appropriately demonstrated efficacy.Novangelis (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't you see? Have you read the reference that you listed (1). There is no scientific evidence.  No tests listed. No other evidence.  Nothing.  Just a school boy's opinion and the opinion of the people writing.  Because some governmental agency says something, but lists on evidence, no tests, nothing.  Do you call that somesort of evidence?  Did you read the reference lised? DataBishop (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All the reliable sources indicate that it is a phony drug. No reliable sources show any benefit. Numerous reliable sources show great potential for harm or actual harm. This is merely a reliable source using the phrase.Novangelis (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

obit links
I am extremely grateful for your checking.  DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Re MMS talk page, and my response to 'Jim Humble'
"Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors... It doesn't matter how many people an editor might have harmed." It may not matter to you. It matters to me. I consider the outside world more significant than Wikipedia protocol. If you think otherwise, I'd suggest you maybe need to reconsider your priorities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Neovandalism
Hi, Novoangelis. I need your help and support. The new page neovandalism is tagged for speedy deletion under G3. It is not a hoax or vandalism, nor should it be categorized as G3. It is a serious and relevant topic. Kindly help allow several weeks of civil discussion. Many thanks. --To_Expand_Tolerance_ 19:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

Proposed Image Deletion
A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer Ratel,TickleMeister,Ozoke,etc. was unblocked
I have been affected by this sockpuppeteer. As it seems also you have been affected by this sockpuppeteer, then I must inform you. The account Jabbsworth is the 6 sockpuppet used by the known sockpuppeteer Ratel to evade his block and to edit disruptively and warring. Then I do not understand how Jabbsworth was recently unblocked by David Fuchs, precisely just few day after Jabbsworth was blocked by Elockid due the same reason: sockpuppetry to evade a block and edit disruptively and warring. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  00:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above comment probably falls within the prohibitions of wp:CANVASSING, is therefore disruptive because it seeks to overturn an Arbcom decision, and the recipient would be wise to ignore it, or report it. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not canvassing to inform the affected people. For a change you just came to an user to offer a help to topic ban me. Will you do the same with the other editors as well?--  ClaudioSantos ¿?  01:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Your repeated reversions of List of Popes and wiping out many references are uncalled for. If only one reference is a problem then you should not be deleting the others. And if there are sources that are to closely a match so as to not be making any significant contribution, then remove the duplicates. Do not delete ALL references as that smacks of vandlism, especially when you've repeatedly done it as you have. Your reasons are also conflicting: first you say there is an unreliable source, don't point out which, then say there are redundant sources. You're reasons are not specific and are broadsides. Please refrain from removing references which add to the removal of the worldwide view notice and use the talk page on List of Popes to explain what specifically your problem with the references are and why you consider whatever source you were talking about "unreliable" and others "redundant". Your mention of "synthesis" was also not understandable. Feel free to explain why you threw that word in. Repllyturns (talk)

How do we report vandalism by Cincybluffa?
(Undid revision 452797459 by Cincybluffa (talk) per WP:EL) This person hit a lot of the pages on my watchlist. I noticed you reverted the edits (thank you) but how do we keep this person from continuing this practice? I know I can see what he/she is editing and then go in and revert each one, but that seems time consuming. What process do we have? Or does someone just contact Cincybluffa? Sgerbic (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One other user and I placed warnings on the editor's talk page. If the warnings are heeded (and no additional edits have been made since the warning), that is it. If the link placement continues, then additional action would be warranted, proportional to the behavior. Guided by the principle of assuming good faith, a few attempts to place links in articles that appear to be thought out should be met with policy explanations, probably for which there will be a warning template that may not even require additional text. Persistent or excessive link spamming would warrant a report. Guidelines can be found here.Novangelis (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Amniocentesis
Hi Novangelis--consider filing a COI and spam complaint against the editor who keeps trying to sell his medical test in this and other articles. Good luck, 207.157.121.92 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.Novangelis (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

aspartame / politeness
I apologize for the last couple sentences of my aspartame post, and have removed them, however, if you've not also reprimanded the user I responded to, I suggest you're being unfair. No, being rude/etc does not justify being rude back, however, being offended when attacked is the lesser sin. Most people when punched don't run away; you get offended, you argue back. Again, it was inappropriate, however, if it's policy to remove attack behavior, then someone should have removed the insult to begin with. What I said ("You're out of touch with reality") is precisely what was said to me in effect. It was said rudely, and condescendingly. Also, the post was mostly productive--or at least relevant--discussion to the article. If you still think it's inappropriate, please tell me more specifically how you think it's rude to the user and/or irrelevant. I'll take any further evaluation carefully into account, but I really think your reprimand was a bit unfair. I'm not trying to bicker; I'm hoping to suggest modification when dealing with similar situations. At least be kind and sympathize (e.g. "I'm sorry this person was rude to you; but it was not appropriate to retaliate"); this will be more productive for someone you're giving advice to. Squish7 (talk) 09:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What better place could there possibly be to seek help about the way I communicate with people than to do so in the string that's a problem? If you want to say that the aspartame string wasn't an appropriate place to seek help about the way I interact with people, that's fine.  But you're acting like I'm violating some basic obvious rule.  If you don't like me arguing with people or behaving inappropriately, then the best thing to do to help me not do that would be to try to answer the questions I was asking about the means in which I communicate with people.  Once again for the fiftieth time, someone (you) didn't even bother to read what I wrote.  It's absolutely hypocritical to criticize my behavior and not answer my questions when I'm trying very hard to communicate properly and fairly.  In fact you act like I wasn't even asking for advice.  My last post was on the way I communicate with people.  Please reread carefully and tell me how you possibly got what you did out of it.  Again, if there's a better place to inquire about communication help (where I'd have to link/refer to the discussion string in question for someone to read and give advice on), please tell me, but there's no way I could know from basic policy.  You think I'm being inappropriate; how appropriate is it to waste people's time not even reading a word they say?  I'm sorry if I'm angry, though please explain how I could remain calm under these insane circumstances.


 * I post "I agree opinions are not sources"; someone says "opinions are not sources". I say "I never said they were"; someone says "opinions are not sources".  I put forth "Can someone offer advice on how I can communicate with people, using this string as an example?"; you say "stop discussing the topic".  I've now had three people speak down to me for totally non sequitur reasons that didn't have anything to do with anything and who didn't even read a word I say.  You people are being the rude and unfair ones, breaking etiquette, responding condescendingly.  This is just plain surreal.  (Feel free to reply to this French recipe for cranberry pancakes, because it absolutely had nothing to do with anything I just said.) Squish7 (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read your last comment on the aspartame page and I want to make one very genuine suggestion. You should consider empathize or sympathizing with people who are not just blatantly violating rules for the fun of it.  Obviously I'm doing my best to behave properly and learn.  Any humane handling of such a situation would take the vague form of "I understand your feelings; but.." or "This user was being inappropriate to you, but here's the way to properly...".  To speak down to someone ("Stop doing this.") is just rude.  It's unproductive.  Why not sympathize with someone's situation?  Try acting they're a human being.  I honestly tried hard to make this a polite constructive criticism but I'm finding it impossible because your treatment of me is so absurd.  Sometimes it's like you people don't even have souls. Squish7 (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong article?
In your warning to Squish7 here, I think you made a small mistake: you refer to Talk:Aspartame, but the user has not edited that page. Checking contribs, I'm sure you meant Talk:Aspartame controversy - perhaps you can fix the warning? Cheers,  Chzz  ► 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As the editor in question responded, it is clear that my message reached the target, but I will correct it for the benefit of other editors.Novangelis (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, yes; I was just one of those 'other readers', passing :-) I didn't actually notice the apparently amicable apology/response above, until after I'd written. Anyway...no big deal whatsoever, just thought I'd mention it in passing :-)  Chzz  ► 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Jabbsworth SPI
At quotes you . I believe the coloquy there sets a record for his attitudes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Smells like canvassing to me.  Jabbsworth   01:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Suggested on all noticeboards when another editor is quoted.    Meanwhile, I think your editing methodology is incompatible with collegial editing.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion
One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Steno
I hope you have noticed the attention for Nicolas Steno two weeks ago. There were 3.5 million readers within three days. This means the article will belong to the ten best read articles on the English Wikipedia in 2012, no doubt, unless Google will come up with more doodles. Taksen (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Miracle Mineral
The miracle mineral is not bogus medicine!! It works!!! I had a tooth root infection, in my lower jaw, that travelled to my brain. I must say I was rather alarmed. I mixed 8 drops of the miracle mineral solution with some lemon juice, waited 3 minutes, diluted it in a pint of drinking water and drank, while swishing the solution around in my mouth and the affected tooth. The infection was cured in under 4 hours!!! This is not bullcrap medicine, it WORKS! You should probably get some, it could save your life. MoogleONE (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not suggest that I drink poison.Novangelis (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

canola oil does not equal organic canola oil
''It takes less than one minute to do a search on "organic canola" and see that it is available (including from major manufacturers). Please stop adding the unsourced false information.Novangelis (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)''

Thanks for your note indicating that there is organic canola "available" on the market. I readily concede that there is "organic rapeseed" that now is being referred to as "organic canola", however, I was not editing about "organic canola" -- I was editing about "products labeled as organic" and noting that if they contain "canola oil", food products may not be labeled as organic -- which remains a fact. Only if a food product is labeled as containing "organic canola oil" may it be included -- because "canola oil" _is_ a GMO (93% of the crop in the U.S. is GM canola), a genetically modified organism, and the wild plants quickly are becoming contaminated. Every organic item in a food product labeled organic must be listed as "organic ..." and GMOs are excluded by definition. After allowing for some banter with you, I intend to reinstate the edit, but will be more precise. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been included in a Wikiquette thread
Greetings, I am just here to let you know I have included you in a request for assistance I have opened in the Wikietiquette notice board, to try and help better facilitate an atmosphere in the MMS talk page, so that we can all work together better to improve the article. The conversation has thus far not gone as well as I would have hoped, mostly due to my own challenges in clearly stating my reasons for seeking assistance. It is my hope that my most recent comment helps to clear things up, and that we can all receive some assistance from third parties, as to how to better work with each other on the controversial subject at hand without misinterpreting each others actions or responses anymore. --Bema Self (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure if this would be appropriate on the wikiquette (sp?) thread, so I thought a quiet "thanks" might be better placed here... You're explanation makes it clearer why things were so crazy in that talk thread when I got involved. And you're right, I am very headstrong and have a lot to learn... I just hope in the process I don't lock horns with others too often. It's not something I'm normally used to doing in such... "passionate" ways. It's definitely not what I expected would happen when I first started, lol.


 * "thanks" =)  --Bema Self (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. You started on the wrong foot. There is nothing wrong with bold edits, but now that you have made your bold edit, try a mixture of simple edits and suggestions. One good idea in a mix of inappropriate changes and formatting can get lost. Content trumps formatting; don't worry about getting the format exactly right if you are assembling a properly sourced content change. (Use preview so you don't "break" the article; some unbalanced formatting symbols such as " " or "{{" can disrupt following text.) Other editors can fix formatting. Instead of quoting policies with which you don't have experience, ask why it would be inappropriate or what would be needed to establish it. An honest misinterpretation is almost indistinguishable from a deliberate one. Go slow, and persuade by quality evidence. (Don't flood the talk page with links to promotional materials.) While there is a general rule about biting newcomers, a number of the newcomers have been obvious promoters (including one claiming to be Jim Humble). Start with what you think is your single best idea, and work from there. Wikipedia has been under construction for 11 years. Take your time.Novangelis (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just went through the archives, to try and catch up more with the situation after you explained. I can see that many folks have come in intentionally trying to push the MMS agenda, and I can several who came in only under an IP trying to help out in what seemed like the same way as the MMS pushers, which makes it so hard to judge their authenticity or intentions. What really sucks, is that even some of those pushing the mms agenda, made some valid points about some of the "sources" or words used in the article and how we apply WP:V, but because they turned out to have a clear agenda, they pretty much ruined those arguments for anyone without any agenda to have any leeway, regardless of how logical. It definitely makes sense why everyone is so protective over what is allowed in the article, and I can see how it developed into what it is (as you and several others clearly tried to be reasonable in the beginning) though now it kind of looks borderline WP:OWN, not that I don't understand why it's like that now. It will be interesting to see how the article unfolds over time.


 * And I think, coming from a different perspective, that while the article is imperfect at the moment in terms of certain words/phrases and that there is still some bias in terms of how the WP:V is applied, that eventually all the hard work you and everyone else has put in to protecting it, will balance itself in the end. I can't say that I won't try later to help out with authentic balancing (instead of what I now know is pseudobalancing), but as you said, it's best to go slow and there is no need to rush. This last week has been difficult for me on a personal level outside of any internet activity, and apart from being offended about being accused of pushing some agenda and receiving some unexpected wikibites (which I deserved, but still didn't expect at the time), I was already peeved for my own reasons and that's the worst kind of first impression I think I've ever made, lol. It's part of the reason I began scrutinizing my own actions and behaviors so much after I cooled down, before doing the same to others. Anywho, I'm rambling on again (that's my vice), so I finish up and not congest your talk page.


 * Anyways, it's my hope that I don't stick my foot in my mouth too often, as I plan to stick around. If nothing else, maybe I can help welcome other newbies to the topic, and explain why it is so guarded and how they might try to contribute to it, without making the same mistakes that I and others without agenda's have made. At best, it might help keep the hostility down and the progress of the article up, and at worst, it might help oust more who only have the MMS agenda. Tallyho? =) --Bema Self (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. When you recently edited Guacamole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dip (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅Novangelis (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail
Thanks for looking at the Daily Mail links. Please feel free to check them off my list, or make any other edits to the list that you think are appropriate. I appreciate it - it's helpful to know which articles you've reviewed, so we don't duplicate our efforts. Thanks again for your help, and happy editing. :) MastCell Talk 06:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I deleted my comment on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology
However, I did it because I made the same comment on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine where I took my answers I wanted. Thus, I deleted my comment on the 1st page, because I thought I would avoid double answers. It will not happen again. I apologize688dim (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Image question at Talk:Dawn
I agree about adding "Sunrise." (An older version of the image, File:Types-of-twilight-en.svg, actually did label "sunrise" and I don't know why it got removed when "technical twilight" was.) But as for the other things (angular diameter of the sun, atmospheric refraction), no, I don't think they belong. The point of the image is to illustrate the how the different phases (dusk, dawn, twilight, sunrise, etc) are related to each other, not the full details of each. That said, I could imagine it being worth having a new image, specifically for Dawn (this image was originally for Twilight) and illustrating, say, the different types of dawn described in the article, or the optical effects as you describe. --- Why Not A Duck 18:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Photon sphere
Wow, that really is kind of mind-blowing, but yes I suppose with frame dragging, you can have photons orbiting a neutron star in one direction while being able to escape if traveling in the opposite direction. Also, I just reached WP:3RR with myself :) - Running On Brains (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!
Hi Novangelis! Can we chat about the message you sent me yesterday? Thanks Cmdlee (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Arthur C. Clarke". Thank you. Note I'm just informing you. -- Neil N   talk to me  16:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lyme disease and Wikipedia NPOV guidelines
You retracted my edits, citing Wikpedia's NPOV guidelines. Your retraction, not my edits, are in violation of Wiki's NPOV guidelines:

- Putting quotes around "chronic" expresses the opinion that there is no such thing.

- My edits noted that all the references cited disputing the existence of chronic Lyme disease were written by a common author. This is using citations - it is in fact a reference to the citations, which contain the names of the authors.

- Claiming that "a minority of doctors" who treat Lyme support continued antibiotic treatment, as your edit claims, needs support. I know, based on my experience with Lyme and with many doctors in the area who treat it, that the /majority/ of doctors who have Lyme patients favor this treatment. It is a small minority who hold what you call the "mainstream" view. Pointing this out was the purpose of my edits, by showing that all of the citations for the mainstream view trace back to articles co-authored by the same three doctors. Philgoetz (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the quotation marks in the subsequent edit, not because they were wrong, but because they are counter to project style. As for the rest of your opinions, they are NPOV original research.Novangelis (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please explain which of my statements of facts you consider "opinions", and why you call it "original research" to point out that the names on your citations are all the same people. It is not "original research" to list citations, and point out that they are all by the same authors.  It is a statement of fact supported by citations.


 * It is you who are expressing unsupported opinions: your opinion that most insurance does not pay for extended Lyme treatement (false, in my experience), your opinion that most clinicians do not believe in extended Lyme treatment (also false, in my experience), and your liberal use of loaded terms such as "minority" and "small number of".
 * Philgoetz (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your unverifiable experience is worthless POV opinion, by definition. While you might think you know better (original research) than the editors New England Journal of Medicine, publications by experts trump your petty complaint about them being experts.Novangelis (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your assistance with the copyvio problems with the IP! Yobol (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and thank you for noticing it.Novangelis (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Acesulfame potassium
ref Soffritti, Belpoggi et al. (2006) is not "unrelated to the topic", as ref Karstadt (2006) refers to Soffritti, Belpoggi et al. in her work, and Sofritti in turn responds to her findings. Did you not read the refs? This is included to see what Karstadt is refering to and why Soffritti is responding to it. So this is not "unrelated to the topic", but needs to be included to know what they are talking.

quote Karstadt (2006) - "In their article “First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed of Sprague-Dawley Rats,” Soffritti et al. (2006) present interesting data on the carcinogenic effects of longterm exposure to aspartame, an artificial sweetener, in experimental animals (rats)." 70.137.131.199 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please open pmc link for Karstadt (2006), then you see. 70.137.131.199 (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing the quote that demonstrates it is off-topic: "exposure to aspartame". The paper is not about acesulfame and mentions it once in combination with aspartame with no statistically significant findings. The non-peer-reviewed letter does not discuss the paper in relation to the topic, acesulfame, but merely uses is as a springboard to introduce another topic, the subject of the article, supported by other sources. This does not promote the paper to on-topic.
 * Additionally, don't keep editing your comments. All you do is generate disruptive edit conflicts when I try to reply and orange message bars if I look up anything on Wikipedia.Novangelis (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well they talk about the methodology used on both acesulfame and aspartame respectively in reports NTP GMM-1 and NTP GMM-2 at NIH and if the transgenic mice model is in principle suitable to replace a full 2-year bioassay. I think Karstadt has proposed that this common NTP methodology is insufficient and has applied / requested that NTP follows up with a more lengthy bioassay. 70.137.149.230 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Unlike the letters, the article does not discuss methodologies with respect to ace-K. Trying to draw inferences from the article rather than go with what is stated is a form of original research inappropriate to Wikipedia.
 * As you do not have a stable IP address, you might want to [ create an account] which enables direct responses that will follow you across IPs.Novangelis (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for variable IP. The Soffritti study finds hints of carcinogenicity in aspartame, where the NTP method applied in GMM-1 and GMM-2 to aspartame and acesulfame does not. So the Soffritti study calls validity and sensitivity of the NTP method in question. quote Karstadt

"The NTP’s final report on those GMM studies (NTP 2005) noted that aspartame and acesulfame had been selected as “negative controls” for validation tests for the GMM models. The chemicals did indeed test negative, but that negative result did not advance our understanding of potential carcinogenicity of acesulfame. Regarding the GMM tests of aspartame and acesulfame, Martha Sandy of the California Environmental Protection Agency, stated that

Negative results [in the GMM tests] are not informative as to the test substance’s carcinogenicity, and point to the need to conduct standard two-year carcinogenicity studies. At this time, transgenic models cannot replace the two-year bioassay and it would be unwise to list a chemical as safe for human exposure based upon negative results in not yet validated model systems. (Sandy 2003)

The findings of Soffritti et al. (2006) of multipotential carcinogenesis in rats fed aspartame over their lifetimes provide support for Sandy’s (2003) statements.

I have sent the NTP a new nomination of acesulfame for 2-year bioassay testing (Karstadt 2006)."

This is not original research, but what Karstadt says. 70.137.145.133 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is what Karstadt says, not what Soffriti says in the paper. As you note, Karstadt draws inferences from multiple sources to reach a conclusion about acesulfame. Wikipedia does not combine sources to generate conclusions, but uses conclusions reached by reliable sources. Karstadt reaches conclusions which match the text; the Soffriti letter does, as well and is referenced in that context. The Soffriti paper does not make any conclusions about acesulfame. General complaints about testing methodologies do not constitute criticism of an individual compound which is not explicitly criticized. "Finds hints" related to one compound does not constitute criticism of another. Using a source as a reference for something it does not state, but which can only be inferred using additional sources, is original research.Novangelis (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have cited it as a supplementary source for Karstadt, as Karstadt is referring to it in above quotation, to contrast its method against the NTP method. 70.137.152.184 (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

oops
Sorry about those formatting mess ups on the Aspartame controversy page, I probably should have just replied below all of the comments. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was messed up when you got there. It was the point by point replies under mine that split the numbered with intervening paragraphs.Novangelis (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Dexter's Laboratory episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your message re: hypopituatarism
Hi there, thank you for sending me a message to tell me I should reference any entry with reputable sources and also to tell me I was trying to edit a 'minor viewpoint' and giving it too much weight.

Unfortunately I disagree with the minor viewpoint and 'giving it too much weight'. There is more than one accepted treatment worldwide for hypothyroidism, the three main prescription treatments are: levothyroxine, natural desiccated thyroid hormones (NDT) and liothyronine (or a combination of levothyroxine, liothyronine or NDT and liothyronine or levothyroxine and NDT).

Whilst I understand that the article is about hypopituitarism and should not digress into other subjects as to 'keep to the point', it would be totally inaccurate to mention levothyroxine only as a form of treatment for hypothyroidism as many sufferers worldwide are treated and optimised with NDT and/or liothyronine either with levothyroxine or not. These people would continue to suffer for the rest of their lives and worsen if treated with levothyroxine only. These other 2 forms of treatment are equally important and must be mentioned. Saying that hypothyroidism is treated with levothyroxine and not mentioning the other 2 medications is giving out wrong information.

Also I would like to ask: why was I prompted to give references for NDT and liothyronine yet there had to be no reference for 'levothyroxine'? how is that right?

Many thanks for patiently taking the above in consideration

Paleohack

ps if I need to provide references in this message please let me know and I will, I am just sending a 'talk' message but I have provided some references on the hypopituitarism article, did not want to 'flood it' so have only put a few. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleohack (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You didn't provide references, you provided meaningless links. Something someone said on the internet is not a source. "Thyroid Science" is not a medical journal listed on PubMed. Countering the latest review articles (which were hard to miss) from high-quality journals with a bunch of WP:FRINGE websites and an article that has nothing to do with human treatment is not balance; it is inappropriate pseudobalance. While you may disagree with reputable endocrinologists' organizations about appropriate therapeutics, Wikipedia has no interest in your opinions.Novangelis (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I never got personal Novangelis, why do you?
Sorry but I do not understand why you have to get personal, as I think you do. Why do I say this? because you said that I 'disagree' with the 'reputable organisations choice of treatment'. How would you know what I agree or disagree with? This has all started because all I wanted was for an article to give the 'accurate' information that there is 3 main prescription medications to treat hypothyroidism: levothyroxine, NDT and liothyronine. To mention ONLY levothyroxine is misleading and incorrect. How can you allow incorrect information on wikipedia? NDT and liothyronine are legitimate prescription treatments used by many endocrinologists around the globe. I am not saying which is better, how could I? I am not every hypothyroid person's doctor! only their doctor/endocrinologist will know if they should take levothyroxine/NDT or liothyronine right? but to deny the existance of these 3 acceptable and used widely methods is simply ludicrous. You are taking this too far and turning it the wrong way round. Please let's go back to basics, all I wanted was just for the correct info to be displayed, that is all, no opinions, no favoritisms no more.

as for the references I have hundreds of them from reputable and (according to you) non reputable sources that these treatments exist and are used.

I posted them already but cannot find my post anymore, but here are some of them: (let me know if you want more and I shall provide)

PS I am posting also an extract to our previous conversation. PPS are you a moderator? if not who is? I am new to all this but am interested in getting this 'officially' looked at as I think this is very biased and unfair on your part, how can you change the world by yourself and deny the existence of medications which is prescribed by endocrinologists around the world? (and other medical professionals I shall say).


 * You didn't provide references, you provided meaningless links. Something someone said on the internet is not a source. "Thyroid Science" is not a medical journal listed on PubMed. Countering the latest review articles (which were hard to miss) from high-quality journals with a bunch of WP:FRINGE websites and an article that has nothing to do with human treatment is not balance; it is inappropriate pseudobalance. While you may disagree with reputable endocrinologists' organizations about appropriate therapeutics, Wikipedia has no interest in your opinions.Novangelis (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Novangelis is these below 'enough' references for you? Now please can you take my above comments more seriously? we are not here to argue what treatment an hypothyroid patient is supposed to be put on, I was 'merely' explaining why I edited the hypopituitarism article so that it was showing a more accurate picture for hypothyroid sufferers (whether they are 'thyroid-less', with or without cancer, Hashimotos etc) Please feel free to add these references to the hypopituitarism article. I did say I did not want to swamp it with references. Many thanks for your continued politeness and patience and I am sure you will be fair at the end.

REFERENCES: Indiscriminate list (~48kB) expunged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleohack (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you from the Big Pharma? No. So you're no good. Same old, same old. Stop contributing. This is the best for your peace of mind. The "faeries" will not accept us. Be at peace. Keep searching and raising awareness where you're welcome. Not here. --Justana (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Aspartame conspiracy theories
Hello!

"You can never be certain of the authenticity of quotes on the Internet." Well said! When you mention conspiracy, you are giving "your" opinion, and i think that is against the cientific article about the aspartame, in this case. I don't agree with that attitude, we shouldn't manipulate people opinion on any subject. Have you, some kind of proof about aspartame and cancer connections? If you have certificated documents you shoul'd present them, not talk about conspiracy. Because when you use the word "conspiracy", people tend to think about a minor group of people that is just "against something". But, who knows if this people are right about the subject? I'm sorry about my english! Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otebios (talk • contribs) 17:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is "Aspartame controversy" because the singular is generally used in article titles, not because it is one singular controversy. The opening line explains that there are multiple controversies. Each could be described as "aspartame controversy". The rare case where the persistent conspiracy-concept-promotion that takes place continuously in obscure corners of the internet (going back to the pre-www days) broke into general public circles does constitute a controversy. Other obscure conspiracy theories (the Freemason connection, for example, also involving Rumsfeld) do not rise to the threshold of general controversy. The sources are not the internet, but third-party reliable sources discussing the conspiracy theory rumors that circulated widely by email.Novangelis (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Quetiapine
You left this message for me:

"Talk:Quetiapine are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Please see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. Please do not encourage behaviors such as seeking medical advice on talk pages. Thanks.Novangelis (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)"

I was answering someone who left a question. It was not me who encouraged any medical advice. You should be alert to what people are writing.

I explained that the use of quetiapine the way it was explained is off-label and it is a fact. Anyway, your encyclopedia, your rules.

I'm sorry.--Justana (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Ref needed" would be better than just deleting stuff.
Hi, "Conclution not derived from source" is not quite right, if you want to correct me. Actually, the statement is not mine, is Francesco's one and the point of the whole article. So I am happy to include another reference, as I did. Also you deleted an infinitesimal part of the whole paragraphaph I had corrected, when it was a compltelly nonsensedue due to vandalism from others after changing meat for peanut, nuber of jars, wrong experiments, etc. Where was your correction on that moment? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielFreiria (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No reference is needed to delete inaccurate original research. It was centuries from Redi to Pasteur/Tyndall, and the same work of Redi discusses the heterogenesis (spontaneous generation) of flies from plant galls (“generated by the same spirit and the same natural power that give birth to the fruits of plants.”). One editor's failure to have detected vandalism is not an invitation to add incorrect material. While well meaning, your edit propagated a commonly believed misconception that cannot be determined from the source, thus it was deleted. Also, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes "~" .Novangelis (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain where is my propagated misconception and inaccurate added material? What you cited abovesays exactly what you deleted from me! (but with a lot more words): It must be assumed “that flesh and plants and other things whether putrefied or putrefiable play no other part, nor have any other function in the generation of insects, than to prepare a suitable place or nest into which, at the time of procreation, the worms or eggs or other seed of worms are brought and hatched by the animals; and in this nest the worms, as soon as they are born, find sufficient food on which to nourish themselves excellently.” These organic bodies “never become verminous if they are kept in a place where flies and gnats cannot enter.” Redi demonstrated this in experiments of almost unique simplicity, using wide-mouthed flasks containing such organic substances as meat or cheese.

I agree that it was a bunch of years from Redi to Pasteur/Tyndall or Koch/Loeffler and even more centuries since Marcus Terentius Varro, but that is totally irrelevant for that paragraph. Don't worry, I won't try to contribute again. Maybe will keep visiting to get some free copyright pictures for lectures, as apparently is not only vandalism which works against this project. Anyway thanks for 2 things, the signature "4~" protocol advise, that is likely I won't use again unlike the link to http://www.encyclopedia.com/ GabrielFreiria (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Plants generating insects from the same process as fruits is spontaneous generation. The significance of Redi's work is exaggerated in popular literature, and you are interpreting the work to get to the popular misconception.Novangelis (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

contesting the speedy deletion of burnt-out diabetes
Hereby contesting the speedy deletion of burnt-out diabetes. Please repost so that a fair and balanced discussion can be allaowed. Thank you for your compliance with Wikipedia's policies. -Burntout123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Piped links replacement on Solar System article
I just noticed you replaced the piped links in the planets list in the infobox of the Solar System article. The reason I put these piped links in the first place is because these names do not belong to the planets alone and at some time, as Wikipedia evolves, they may point to a "Disambiguation page". If you agree, I suggest that we move back to that version. Nxavar (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is enough discussion of the topic that it seems unlikely, and there are sufficient links to the planet pages that any move would be accompanied. Only Mercury is disambiguated because the planet and the element are of comparable importance to an encyclopedia. If there is a change in policy, a bot-based change will be needed, given to numerous articles following the current convention. Why create a cryptic link text to take you to a redirect page when you can make a simple direct link? This is not a strong opinion, but a mild preference.Novangelis (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The piped link is arguably a safer option. The redirect is transparent to the user so it shouldn't concern us. The "cryptic" format is only visible in the source and the mouse-hover information box. I don't think its so burdening, actually its presence might give a better impression to the reader for Wikipedia as a place where accuracy is taken strongly into account. I disagree that it's a mild preference but I understand your reasoning.
 * Let's leave it as it is. Nxavar (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To be clear, when I said preference, I meant personal preference, not anything at any project level. I don't think there is any specific policy about disambiguating to a redirect page, either way. (If I was aware of one, that would guide my actions.)Novangelis (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Correction: they may be replaced per WP:NOTBROKEN (" target may be replaced with target if redirect is not a Redirect with possibilities"). There is a different hidden category on that describes the redirect: R from unnecessary disambiguation.Novangelis (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

bullying
"THERE ARE NO PRO ASPARTAME EDITORS. There is no conspiracy. But, there is policy and there are policy following editors. I am so god damned tired of this bullshit, this constant POV pushing really has to stop. As well, the COI accusations ('pro aspartame editors') have to end. Such accusations are a gross violation of AGF. One would think that after all of your time here and the notes on your talk page you would have figured that out. The source, by the way, seems fine with me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC) "

I do not understand. Quotes like that above are fine but when i call attention to a true fact i am criticized. This is massive unfairness. Please explain why he can rant and rave while others can not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quione (talk • contribs) 17:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) If you want to accuse me of bullying you could at least do it to my face. If you really have a problem with me, take me to ANI, I in fact would encourage that if you think I am bullying you.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edits are disruptive. They do not contribute to the building of an encyclopedia. If you have any evidence to present about editors with conflicts of interest, post them on the appropriate board. Using accusations to impeach constructive editors on article talk pages is wholly inappropriate. You have been warned of this numerous times, but the behavior persists. Asking an editor to discuss an edit is not bullying. Your "true facts" are bullshit, and were repeated so many times after the point a reasonable editor would have understood, that diplomatic wording was exhausted. Accusing editors of COI or bullying without basis is a personal attack. Redact your personal attacks.Novangelis (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The following has been moved from Talk:Aspartame controversy where it was off-topic:

This discussion does not advance the article, so let's keep it from bloating the article talk page.Novangelis (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Obscure edit descriptions
Edit descriptions like this and this are pretty much useless, as neither self-promotion, nor advertising, nor a conflict of interest, nor undue weight on a particular point of view are apparent from reading the linked page and the home page of that site. After a search wp:macroevolution.net I found this discussion, which clarified the fact that two editors felt the need to delete that innocuous link. As an evolutionary molecular biologist myself, I have my doubts about McCarthy's saltationism theory (it doesn't help that he hasn't followed the last 20 year of literature), though it's not creationism by a long stretch as one uninformed editor blundered to suggest in that discussion. However, I do feel your that your wikipedia wide removals are a bit of an overkill, and I understand McCarthy's reaction. Afasmit (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I linked to the specific policies cited at the discussion you found. If I created a link to the discussion, it would break upon archival. Had someone not already started the deletion process, I was content to allow further discussion. Repeatedly linking one's own website is self-promotion, and linking to an unpublished alternative theory is fringe (see #4). If you wish to discuss it on the fringe theory or external links noticeboards, that is your prerogative. Where you see the reaction as reasonable, I see it as wholly consistent with that of someone denied the inappropriate use of Wikipedia for free promotion of a personal opinion: sour grapes.Novangelis (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiMedicine
Hi I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Attack?
Can you please cite where I attacked OhNoItsJamie? I simply stated facts about his editing, what is written on various websites about him (google his name), and overriding my expertise in a field that he knows nothing about to comply with wikipedia rules that he is applying incorrectly. If anyone was attacked, it was me. I did not spend 5 years in graduate school to deal with this level of bureaucratic idiocy [clarified so this is not interpreted as an "attack"] which forces my 100% accurate (per MD and PhD standards) statements. I feel very attacked and violated that someone would erase my content without asking, as he did - especially given the dozens of patients I have had to deal with in my clinical practice who have had this issue that is under discussion. Angelatomato (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deliberately rude and sarcastic phrases like "Learn to tell an article from a list" are blatant attacks...particularly when this user was listing keywords to try to help people find information who do not have online access to empirical journals. Thank you. Angelatomato (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's no more of an attack than this condescending edit you left on my talk page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed my content from the Koro article without posting on the talk page, I sent you a very long message explaining the significance of the change I made (it was a 1 sentence change that took 3 paragraphs to explain ) & then asked you to collaborate with me to improve the content under your interpretation of the guidelines ("I am sure we can mutually agree on an edit that incorporates Peyronie's disease into that article even if you felt the original edit somehow violated the guidelines of wikipedia. Thanks.") However, you refused and put a 1 line reply citing a rule that you are not applying correctly.  And now, you've said you will remove anything I post on your talk page (very collaborative of you).  But, I am being "condescending"?  If I state my clinical experience or degrees, those are facts...not means to condescend.  As a 1st year, I certainly lacked the understanding of things I did as a 5th year - and that was my point.  If you don't understand the topic, then be a little more careful of how you apply rules to it.


 * Instead of wasting time with this drama, wouldn't it be better to look in the appropriate academic journals and/or collaboratively work to figure out the best way to incorporate this information? Or, are you solely on a mission to make sure that sentence never appears in that article? Angelatomato (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

removal of edit
i have rescently posted an edit on cancer research that you said i did not cite. i did not cite this because i have done this with research of my own. i have not used anybodies work in my own edit. --Stewiegriffin295028 (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Then it was an appropriate removal. Content must be verifiable.Novangelis (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of external link
Hello Novangelis,

I saw that you removed an external link I added to Sorbitol. I considered the link to be appropriate, based on "What can normally be linked," item 3, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues..."

Am I misinterpreting that section? If so, I apologize.

Best regards,

RunWRun RunWrun (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The first entry in Links normally to be avoided explains it : "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." In other words, if we can write an article that would contain the same information, we do not link to an article that would be redundant. An example of something that would add to the understanding of the topic, but could not be incorporated directly, would be a photograph or collection of photographs of a scientist who discovered or developed a sweetener in the lab where the work was done.Novangelis (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Alcohol
Content copied and modified from User talk:David Hedlund by David Hedlund

The articles Short-term effects of alcohol and Long-term effects of alcohol have apparently been restored so the article Short and long-term effects of alcohol that I created by merging to two can now be deleted. The unidentified material were from the article Alcoholic beverage now moved to Alcohol and health and structured into Template:Psychoactive substance use. Thank you.David Hedlund 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is not single articles, but an overarching pattern of moving the work of others between articles. For example, did and  come from Long-term effects of alcohol. The copy-pastes are a mess on the grand scale. How many are there? Are you capable of clearing up or attributing all of them?


 * David: They were in fact just a few and I did remove their content to Long-term effects of alcohol peer your request. Problem solved =)


 * As an aside, new sections go at the bottom of talk pages and there is no need to make the same post in three places.Novangelis (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

reverting
Rather than simply reverting people's work on a topic, I would invite you to discuss any specific concerns you have on the talk page - it's unclear from your comments why you want to remove the section on major academic reviews of studies. Thank you, Tilapidated (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Fluoride
The CDC has issued warnings against giving fluoride to children under 8 years old. Yet this information was deleted from the Fluoride page. Why? Scienceguy1984 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Because they have not "issued warnings".Novangelis (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the source I provided? It is from the CDC's page. Scienceguy1984 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it is not a warning against giving fluoride to children under 8. We go with what the sources say, not fanciful interpretations. Novangelis (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
Hi, but your recent edits do no conform to Wikipedia's NPOV. Richard Dawkin's "The Greatest show on Earth", cited as the "academic" resource for the content under "Evidence of Evolution", is less of a creditable academic source than the professionally-cited article that's found on a webpage of The Institute of Creation Research. The Columbia University Press and North Atlantic Books, and other academic journals and publications all cited in support of Dr. Jerry Bergman's article--are all mainstream sources. Evolution, the very patently observable phenomenon of historical science is still a theoretical science unfortunately for some. Wikipedia, as a common-source information hub for most people--academics and laity alike--must explicate in principle all sides of a theoretical argument. Thank you. I'm an evolutionist!! --Twainmaned (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, not even close to a real argument. See WP:RS.Novangelis (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

David Hedlund
David Hedlund: Yes, I have read some of Wikipedias polices and had many questions answered from Coffepusher. I'm trying to clean up after me. View my History if you doubt my new contributions. Please reply to my talk. --David Hedlund (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Recurrent laryngeal nerve, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trachea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks~
Thank you for your kind words! And for your input on the proposal on aspartame/aspartame controversy! I hope I was as bold as you were looking for.Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14
Hi Novangelis! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 17:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

My sandbox
I'm a little concerned about my work in the sandbox. I am new to Wikipedia and having trouble with reference work. Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saadahmad (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Coming Together
Hello Novangelis, and thanks for all your constructive criticism of many of the articles I have created. I feel, however, that this would be even more constructive if you were to specify exactly what needs to be added to and removed from Coming Together (advertisement) to warrant the removal of the POV tag, since it seems I do not currently know what this is and in fact, according to you, may have made the article worse. Thank you, Jinkinson (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply at: Talk:Coming Together (advertisement). Novangelis (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Lahey Clinic
Hi, I'd like to speak with you about your copyright concerns on the Lahey Clinic wikipedia page. How can we resolve this? I'm currently trying to update the content and remove outdated/incorrect items, but each time I remove the copyright, you re-instate it. LaurenatLahey (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Lauren, a Lahey employee


 * Each time? I restored it once. Why? At Wikipedia, copyright violations are serious matters. Additionally, on the top of the page, in big letters display: "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." Further, the middle section explains what you can do—see CP for details. Additionally, you have a clear conflict of interest in editing the article. While this does not preclude editing, Wikipedia is not a not a platform for advertising.Novangelis (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yahoo! Answers
Hi,

I noticed that you have stopped contributing to Yahoo! Answers - what a shame. It appears that Yahoo is getting more attention now that Marissa Mayer is at the helm. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No new sources. I was going to look to see if any reliable sources about the format change appear, but this is not the week.Novangelis (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Same here in regards to Yahoo! Groups. It seems that the media is not interested in reporting about in-house strife at Yahoo in general (Flickr seems to be excluded). XOttawahitech (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Recurrent laryngeal nerve
Hello Novangelis. This page is on my watchlist. Do you think there is enough edit warring by IPs to justify semiprotection? I notice there is at least one IP-hopper from 71.246.* but it's not very frequent. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP hopper corresponds to who created the account for an edit war which has been ongoing. The user has gone from cut-and-paste plagiarism to misrepresenting the work as original. The only change is citing only the first sentence to the source rather than the entirety, despite the identical interpretation of sources--I severely doubt that Twainmaned read Larsen's Embryology. I don't know the best approach to singular long-term POV warriors: if the IPs are semi-static, maybe increasing duration blocks for ongoing edit warring (and longer for block evasion if the last is in effect) will achieve the same effect without hindering an honest IP that wants to add something to the neuroanatomy.Novangelis (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular good-faith IP you have in mind? Usually when there is an IP-hopping warrior we feel free to semi for a long period, unless there's strong reason not to. When an article is semied, an IP who wants to propose a beneficial change can use WP:Requested edit which actually tends to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No IP in particular. I watch the article closely that I know requests will get a response.Novangelis (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. The coupling of the report with no explanation made the report unclear.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=589369826 your edit] to Recurrent laryngeal nerve may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * there is a connecting branch between the inferior laryngeal nerve and the internal laryngeal nerve a branch of the superior laryngeal nerve. While it is a connecting nerve branch, not a vascular
 * ✅Novangelis (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590146321 your edit] to Recurrent laryngeal nerve may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * reaching the tip of the tail would have been exceeded 30 m.