User talk:Perspeculum/Archive 1

Jan Bazynski
Thank you for your help, though I'm not sure wether your sentence "If the majority of people who take an interest in this article disagree with the change and have good reason to do so, the change should be reverted under the guidelines of WP:Consensus." is really supported by the WP:Consensus policy. A move should be discussed and only made after Consensus was reached. Radeksz moved it without a discussion and without consensus, several editors immidiately disagreed. I don't think it's up to the disagreeing editors to find a "good reason" for a revert, especially as the moving editor is obviously not going to support another move/a revert. As a consequence any controversial move would be stable just because the mover objects any counter-argument. In short: Which version is the starting point for a WP:RM discussion? The version before or after the disputed move? What happens if consensus is not reached? I'm not expecting a content-related answer, it's just about the WP policy in general. Thanks HerkusMonte (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. To clarify what I meant, for which I apologise for not having been clearer earlier, is that in some circumstances an edit or move might be made in response to a notable source, for which no current counter-argument that can be sourced exists. However, in this case, if there is evidence to support both arguments but the majority of people support one side, then that should be the end result under WP:Consensus. You are right that it is courteous to discuss a broad change such as a name change before that change is made, although again, there may be exceptions to this if the person making the edit has good reason to believe is is not controversial.
 * I don't pretend to be an expert in WP policy, but this is my '3rd opinion'. There may be editors that disagree, but I'm confident I've made a balanced case here. I think in this case, it would have been prudent for the original editor to discuss the change first. However, if the consensus is that the name change should be reversed, and there are no notable reference sources that would sway the discussion otherwise, the article should be reverted to it's original name. Please feel free to ask for any further clarification. ῤerspeκὖlὖm   in ænigmate  ( talk )  00:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there are no sources at all for the original name (save a self published "alternate history" novel). This was the reason I moved it in the first place. There might be a THIRD possibility of a title (neither the previous nor the current name) but it doesn't make sense to move the article back to a title that has no support among sources what so ever.radek (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that I have not dismissed your edit out-of-hand. Are your sources more indicative of the name you changed the article to? Also, are they reliable sources? If the answer to both is yes, then in my opinion it is up to the opposing debaters to offer evidence in support of their own position. If there is no such evidence, a simple personal disagreement is not sufficient grounds to reverse the change. For example, if I decided to change an article, be it title or content, based on a cited reliable source, I would not expect it to be changed back based on the disagreement of one or one hundred people without sufficient reason - normally a reliable source. Of course, there are exceptions - such as names of people or organisations that whilst being officially named one thing, may be known officially and/or colloquially as something else (a classic example being a similar debate about SIS/MI6 a few weeks ago). If there is still ambiguity, you should ask for more input from more editors (through perhaps, WP:RFC), but I do encourage you to reach a compromise - I notice you have already started discussing this. ῤerspeκὖlὖm   in ænigmate  ( talk )  01:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sipuleucel-T
Your opinion on Sipuleucel-T would be appreciated. --Nbauman (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Hi. Please give us your opinion on the reverts Nbauman has repeatedly made on my entry on this treatment. He insists on creating the wrong impression that the study results are weak and questioned, when in fact the medical community has very quickly accepted it as a new standard of care for this indication. I have tried to start a discussion of the edit war he is waging in the discussion section of Sipuleucel-T. You could go read what I have written there for a start in giving us a 3O. Thanks SaulK (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SaulK, your current edit that omits your own calculation is acceptable as far as I'm concerned, since the information reflects the study. Rather than putting "at page 417" though, you should ideally cite it properly, it just makes it look a bit tidier. I have also responded on Nbauman's talk page. ῤerspeκὖlὖm   in ænigmate  ( talk )  23:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, but I'm afraid you've made an error that has unfortunately led to your encouraging Nbauman to persist. In such trials one does calculate the "median survival advantage" by simple subtraction of the medians--look at the NEJM article itself--the 4.1 month figure is obtained by subtracting the survival advantage of the placebo group from that of the treatment group. The reason the 14.2 month figure was not given prominent play relates instead to the lack of randomization of the compared groups, namely those who were pure placebo and those who crossed over and got frozen Provenge. As the article noted, the lack of randomization means a new study is needed to determine if/how much frozen Provenge confers its own survival benefit. The reason they included the fact, however, is clearly that it suggests the frozen formulation itself helped the patients live longer and so Provenge wasn't really being compared to placebo, but to later Provenge--and therefore it may be that the 4.1 month figure understates the benefit of the treatment. I hope you will consider this and go write more on Nbauman's talk. He really doesn't seem to understand this area and is obstructing a truthful, informative entry. SaulK (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning, but I still don't agree. The fact that the study confirms that lack of randomisation warranted further study leads to the conclusion that the data you suggest is possibly not an accurate reflection. You say yourself that the figure may be an understatement, meaning there's a possibility it's not. From an encyclopaedic point of view, it's not up to you to decide this. Unless you can find a study that clearly highlights the higher benefit, my position remains the same. ῤerspeκὖlὖm   in ænigmate  ( talk )  23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Readers should be allowed to decide for themselves what to make of the data and from an encyclopedic point of view there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving the reader a quote from the leading medical journal in the world which in effect says "here is some data that is suggestive, but that needs more study to be confirmed". It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to only report on "established facts", but to convey the current state of human understanding. If that current understanding is still up in the air that does not mean an encyclopedia is forbidden to discuss what data is available for different positions. Don't you suppose if you had prostate cancer you might expect an encyclopedia article on Provenge to let you know that in addition to established study results showing a 4.1 month survival advantage you might also like to know that someone at the NEJM believes there is a chance--that should be studied further--that Provenge works even better than that? If you had late stage disease you surely would want to know that when deciding whether to get the treatment or not.

Please consider this carefully--you are not boxed in just because your initial response turns out to have been wrong.

Have I reported what the NEJM has said accurately? You know the answer is "yes" The data is not in question--it is what it is and there is a 14.2 month survival advantage. You are instead objecting that the data is not definitive--and suggesting that therefore it should be excluded and that is patently wrong. I have not suggested in the entry that it is definitive--only that it exists and should be studied further. SaulK (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, I don't appreciate being told what I know. It's quite arrogant for you to assume I've realised my mistake and am 'afraid' to admit it.
 * However, I've gone right back through the edits to the original one that was reverted by Nbauman and whilst I see you've used the 14.2 month figure, you have clarified that it needs further study to be verified. Amongst all the reversions and re-edits I previously looked through, I did not see this. You also neglected to clarify it yourself, but no matter. With this in mind, I'm happy that it accurately portrays what the study says. Apologies it took me a while to find it, but there we go. If the original text is reinstated, I'm happy, and I hope you are too. ῤerspeκὖlὖm   in ænigmate  ( talk )  11:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Styrbjörn the Strong
Thank you for weighing in with your 3O! I would prefer to discuss this on that talk page, unless, for example, I will need your advice on how to try to stop the other young editor from trying to dominate articles about some of Swedish history on en.WP the way he tries (and often succeeeds) to do on sv.WP, in my experience. Knowing what I know from there, and the methods this man and at least one of his cohorts resort to there, I suspect that the actual thorn in his side here is not wanting to have it stated cleary now that the legendary prince's name really was Björn, even though that is clearly stated in the 4th sentence of the Swedish article. I can elaborate on why I suspect that later, but I sincerely hope that won't be necessary. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes please! Another Swedish editor got involved now and apparently wants to trash the compromise that my first opponent and I just achieved. I will comment him after your entry there - but I am very wary of dealing with this guy at all, based on past experience. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You wrote last that the article's name had been changed. I am not aware of that. What we discussed at first was how the man's double epithet best could be translated, now the question has developed into scrapping the whole discussion of his name. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just leaving for Belgium now for two days - I'll chime in when I return on Monday. ῤerspeκὖlὖm   in ænigmate  ( talk )  05:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to touch that article at all anymore, no matter how tempted I will be - and sad to see damage probabaly done. I'm really quite afraid of Kuiper. He has long been under a block on Commons and they are now debating a permanent block there. I appreciate your neutral and balanced input. Thank you! Have a great time with les Belges! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi
I'm really sorry to drag you into this, but a week or two ago you provided a 3O on a dispute on the article on Jan Bazynski/Johannes von Baysen. Right now, the user that I was having the dispute with, User:Skäpperöd is trying to get me topic banned, and using that discussion as evidence of some kind of "wrong doing" on my part. Since you provided the third opinion, read the discussion, and since I feel attacked, harassed and threatened here, I would very much appreciate it if you could state your opinion as to the conduct of participants in that discussion at the request. Thank you.radek (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there. At this stage I feel it's beyond my control as to what goes on, regardless of my opinion. However, the process is now being overseen by the arbitrators who are a lot more experienced in dispute resolution than I am - they will be able to read what both of you have said, done, what I have said etc. If they need my input then they will ask for it, but they will already be able to see what I have written. Sorry I can't be of more help, but I'll leave it to the more senior editors now. ῤerspeκὖlὖm   in ænigmate  ( talk )  16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion removals
Thank you for your participation at the Third Opinion project. I noticed that you removed a pending request from the list there and declined it in. We very recently adopted a new guideline at Third_opinion which says:"Even if a request does not fully comply with the guidelines set out here, requests for third opinions should not ordinarily be removed from the list of active disagreements unless a third opinion will be given or unless the request has been listed for more than seven days. If you believe that there is a compelling reason to remove an item from the list for some other reason, it is usually a good idea to discuss the removal on the Third Opinion talk page before taking any action."It's so new (and at the bottom of the page to boot) I'm not surprised that you missed it, but just wanted t let you know. I don't think you ought to go back and change what you did in that edit, but thought that you'd like to know for the future. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 13:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did miss that addition! Thanks for highlighting it though. ῤerspeκὖlὖm   in ænigmate  ( talk )  13:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Emblem of Mongolia#Coat of arms vs. emblem
Hi, could you plese elaborate your "third opinion" here a little further, ideally by trying to address at least some of the issues raised in the discussion? Thanks! --Latebird (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)