User talk:SpectraValor

Another welcome
I just wanted to give you a more personalized welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like editing here and decide to stay. Since it looks like you're interested in (and knowledgeable about) viruses, you may be interested in taking a look at the Medicine WikiProject or the Virus WikiProject. These projects are basically just informal groups of people who (ideally) work together on improving articles in their shared area of interest. Anyhow, welcome, and happy editing. :) MastCell Talk 17:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcomes. I joined Virus WikiProject and will consider Medicine. SpectraValor (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Let me know if there's anything I can give you a hand with. Cheers... MastCell Talk 22:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Another welcome, and Perth Group
Hi SpectraValor. I'd like to reiterate the welcomes above and explain a couple of unusual aspects of Wikipedia since yours is a newer account. Our threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. An organization's website is an acceptable source for information about itself. See WP:SPS. The Regush book is an acceptable source as well. We are not using it to make assertions of fact about a public health controversy. We are using it as a citation for information about The Perth Group. While you are welcome to question whether the organization is notable, or more accurately according to published reports, "notorious," but we don't delete information or articles just because we don't like what they say. This runs counter to how the production of knowledge in academia works because we are not producing knowledge. We are summarizing materials that are already published. I believe it's important to make it clear to someone researching the Perth Group that their views are notorious and have been consistently rejected by the scientific community and by legal experts. It's also important to explain the ramifications of their efforts on public health, especially in South Africa, where their influence is clear and undeniable. I find what they and related organizations are doing to be highly problematic, but I feel we owe it to readers to explain clearly why this organization's claims are considered problematic. Without this article, the first page of results for The Perth Group on any search engine gives their side of things without any counterpoint. That does a great disservice to everyone, especially those researching the claims put forth by denialists. There is a long-running struggle on Wikipedia between deletionists and inclusionists, and this is a perfect example of why I am an inclusionist. Without this article, the Perth Group's website claims effectively go unchallenged unless someone does deep research. Unfortunately, the people who need this information most tend not to use online resources in that way. I don't think this article legitimizes them in any way. I think it's an opportunity for just the opposite. Jokestress (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain your position to me. The same debate goes on in the scientific community, where some of us think that responding to denialists just gives them credibility, while others of us think that they must be challenged. I can see both sides of this argument. What I think I know is that Wikipedia's BLP policy doesn't seem to support naming names of supposed denialists unless there is firm evidence, that is, something more than an unknown website run by one or two people or a self-published book of pseudoscience. Whether Perth Group should be deleted or not, we must be very careful about BLP.
 * Also, I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that a Wikipedia page on the Perth Group should seek to de-legitimize the Perth Group. While I strongly disagree with Eleni and Valendar, my personal opinions and yours should not guide Wikipedia content. Reliable sources have that job, in my opinion, and adherence to reliable sources is not served by using original research and synthesis to inflate the apparent notability of a marginal group. Not that you have that intention, of course. SpectraValor (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's my hope that my edits to the article itself give no hint of my personal opinions about them. It's likely that this article will be the top search result for the Perth Group if it is not deleted. I believe that would be a good thing for the reason you mentioned: their website does not give the full picture we can give on Wikipedia regarding Mbeki and Parenzee, etc. It's accurate to say that Perth Group members have published with the people listed on their site. One of my interests is quackery and medical fraud, and I often find that listing known associates and collaborators can help contextualize the work of all involved parties. Jokestress (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree that listing everyone involved with a marginally notable group is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not limited by space, OK, I get it...but I recently reviewed another AIDS denialist group that has a website listing the names of several thousand people who purportedly question the "dogma." Should we list all of these people on Wikipedia, or at least all of the people with degrees after their names? I doubt it, because there's no evidence of the authenticity of these associations, or even that the "signatories" ever really signed up. Someone, I forget who, researched this notorious list a few years back and found out that many people on the list didn't know they were on it. Much like a colleague of mine recently found out after the fact that he was a "co-author" on two posters at an international conference. If reliable coverage of the Parenzee trial or of South African policies actually refers to anyone in the "Perth Group" (and I use the quotes because the few reliable sources that cover them use quotes) other than Eleni, I would have no objection. But to out someone as an AIDS denialist based on an unreliable website or original research of a paper written 20years ago...I don't understand how that conforms to BLP. SpectraValor (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

AFD !vote
What you're looking for to close the AFD is "Nominator withdrawn" You can pretty much throw that up at the top and mark it closed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note . WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. SpectraValor (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Good edit
Good edit at Maharishi University of Management. Re: your question, does MUM have a PhD in physics degree? It does not appear that at present it has one. any thoughts on this?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also if you have any thoughts or feedback on the article in general, they are welcomed. I've done a fair amount of work there over the past few years but I think feedback and suggestions are always beneficial. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement, Keithbob. I just noticed that physics was not listed as a current PhD program and that the individual in question received his degree before the name change. SpectraValor (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GM controversies RfC
Hi! Since you pinged me by linking my name, I assume you wanted to draw my attention to that particular thread of discussion. :-) I think the thread is too long already though - in my opinion, adding too many back-and-forth arguments to an RfC is just likely to make it more difficult for the closing admin to determine the consensus. Arc de Ciel (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I mentioned your name not to embroil you further but simply because what you wrote was so well stated. SpectraValor (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In that case, thanks for the compliment. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: March Against Monsanto
I don't believe the talk page discussion supports your proposed edits, so I've reverted back to the stable version. Per WP:BRD, please use the talk page to participate. I also have found several problems with your edits that differ from the sources themselves. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I've removed your latest edits which added back in off-topic sources about the scientific consensus. We have previously discussed this on the talk page and the consensus was against using sources in this way. Please use the talk page to make the case for your edits. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notifications. SpectraValor (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I think you will find that I can be quite agreeable to brief comments proposing fair and neutral edits within policy and guidelines. I've responded to your query on the talk page, but I am happy to provide further information if you so desire. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's worth a lot to me! SpectraValor (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your 3RR warning on my talk page
Please do not come and school me on my talk page. You are perfectly welcome to file any case against me at any time without a warning. I consider what you did harassment and will not tolerate it. No more warnings, OK? Just file your case. Have a nice day  petrarchan47  t  c   23:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of edit warring. Please provide diffs. ```Buster Seven   Talk  00:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Link to 3RR case. I'm sorry to have become involved in such a contentious issue, but I don't think undisclosed paid editing or edit warring in opposition to perceived paid editing is good for Wikipedia. SpectraValor (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No longer involved at March Against Monsanto
I've done what I felt was right to improve an article and then help bring attention to what I think is disruptive behavior at that article, which I edited for the first time about a month ago. Now, it would be irresponsible of me to spend more of my time in this kind of editing climate. I wish everyone involved the best of luck and strength in keeping your cool and following policy! I will be responding further only if a Wikipedia official wants to verify my claims at AN/I of no financial involvement. SpectraValor (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome for edits on HIV
Thank you, also, for the nice gesture of extending a thank-you. Brainiacal (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)