User talk:TerryE/Archive 1

Hello Terry, I sent the hyperlink to the new website to my private address and had a fiddle yesterday, but now the URL of your computer has changed and I cannot access the pages. Would you please be kind enough to let me have the new address address so I can play with it tomorrow. Please, send to panihaniab at domain aol dot com

I trust all is well with you and look forward to talking on Monday. I shall send a bit of an agenda in advance.Hajduczek (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, will do Terry TerryE (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

General statement at XMRV
Hi, I wrote a little warning for everyone at XMRV. I think going back to the strict sourcing requirements is the only resolution that will bring some peace to the article. Cheers! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No legal threats
Please, don't make legal threats or statements that could be perceived as legal threats, as you have recently done on my talk page. I take all such language seriously due to personal experience and Wikipedia policy. Per WP:NLT, I have brought your threat to the attention of Wikipedia administrators. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, this claim was dismissed. See the archive: . -- TerryE (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon
Hi TerryE, one of our editors is concerned that you are making a legal threat at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Could you please pop over and clarify whether this is the case or not? Thanks. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
Please note that canvassing other editors with non-neutral messages is considered disruptive, especially when you have stated that the recipients comprise an "inner circle" of interested persons including "informed researchers in the general field". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:CANVAS is that "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive". I am an open sort of person as you can see in my bio and from its links, and I do what I do in the open. My intent was to try to reach a consensus of the active contributors to the talk page.  Four (you, me, ward20 and sciencewatcher) seem to track changes, but two don't. My post was to them in the open (rather than by PM).


 * My action was a statement by me on what I though that you were doing wrong and a request for the individual to participate in the discussion. Yes, I did state my POV, but I did not ask them to adopt a position or try to influence them in the content of that discussion and therefore WP:CANVAS does not apply. I recall a precedent by another user who made an accusation (on the discussion page) about the actions of one the boards participants (Ward20) and then notified the other users including me by message. What was his name? Oh yes, Keepcalmandcarryon that was it. (Interesting Bio, by the way.)  -- TerryE (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * sorry not Ward20, but Dangermouse72 on the XMRV article. -- TerryE (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * KCCO: I do not acknowledge your statement that TerryE has canvassed my support, or been disruptive. I do not recognise any "inner circle", let alone belong to one. I can see no evidence that TerryE threatened you with legal action, and agree with admins who dismissed your accusation. On the other hand, I do note a pattern which might be termed tactical intimidation while seeking to impose a POV. If this persists, I will take advice on how it should be dealt with. Sam Weller (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute article

 * Please see Request for discussion on triggering Edit War Process. Feel free to contribute to this discussion if you wish.  I apologise for contacting all contributors, but I have been asked to be impartial by another editor working  on this page. -- TerryE (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Terry E, you have personally attacked me by stating that I engage in "deliberate deception" and have "crossed the line". I would like to remind you of our no personal attacks policy. I would also like to emphasise that I respect your views and your interest in Wikipedia and trust that we can maintain a collegial editing relationship. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BLP question at: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the page. I didn't realise that you were an author of WP:NPA, but thanks for the reference, which I've now read I thought that the clause was "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence".  [My ital]. I felt that my comment was in line with the evidence that I provided, but then again I am a lot less experience at raising these sorts of complaints than you.  Sorry.  -- TerryE (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Things can only get better
Hi Terry, I have seen your post about retiring from the wikipedia, this is not an easy place all of the time but sometimes it can de also, the more discussion you are involved in the more you will see that, I realize you are feeling the stress over this but take some time and if you feel to continue editing that would be great, I really found your interpretation of the policy at the WP;BLPN very clear and correct. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal involvement?
TerryE, in view of this, I would like to suggest respectfully that you consider your motivations for editing Whittemore Peterson Institute and related articles on Wikipedia. Your personal involvement in the ongoing XMRV and CFS debate may not lend itself to objective participation in encyclopaedia editing on this subject, and will certainly do nothing for your stress levels. Please believe me: I write this not out of spite or anger or desire to get my way but because I recognise your abilities as a writer and researcher and fear you are underutilising them in pursuing an ideological rather than an encyclopaedia building agenda. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you have produced this reference. If you'd asked me I would have given it to you.  I have a Masters in Maths, and one of my semester courses was on trials design.  I felt that this was a reasonable and technically specific criticism of the Imperial paper based on my academic knowledge, in that the team broke one of the central rules of cohort selection.  If you want to see an academic description I can provide references or you can search for  "Selection Bias" "Trial Design" and find them yourself.  My textbooks are probably out of print now. In essence, if there are CFS sufferers who have XMRV, then it is plausible to posit that they tend to be in the lower ranges of the CFS ability ranges, or if XMRV is correlated to our virus infections such as EBV, then selecting your cohort from patients who willing and able to travel routinely into the centre of London to take part in psychology studies and who have no other biological symptoms, then you are excluding the very class of patients from your trail that you are nominally seeking to detect.  However, since I am not an acknowledged expert in this field I wouldn't dream of proposing it an RS source.


 * If you are saying that a declared interest in the subject disqualifies you from input then by this argument editors such as sciencewatcher and Tekaphor would also need to step down. One my other interests albeit post degree was in formal logic, hence what you might see as pedantry and I as rigour in using RS and the logic rules around any treatment of content.  So my interests here are in letting the facts from the RS speak for themselves without mutation or distortion, whilst maintaining an overall proportionality. I see no conflict here.  This comment doesn't even relate to WPI anyway; there might be more of a case of me avoiding posting on Prof Simon Wessely's page, which I don't do anyway. -- TerryE (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hi Terry, I have seen a bit of the recent editing, your request is fine but as there was a report made against me my the other editor it is best I stay out of the discussion, try to talk about it, the wars at wiki are not won in a day, avoid repeated reverts at all costs, use policy and discussion, if you get no where try a reguest for comment on the talkpage, I will have better look and see if I can think of a way you could progress, regards. Your interpretation of policy was very good and verbalized, stay on that path. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey listen up
WP:NPA, i did never touch you and attack you, i am gone six months and you attack ME at an article i do not edit. KC is a good editor, so your fave theory is shoot down, do not take it out on him!!! Thx btw, i watch the article now. RetroS1mone  talk  14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem user(s)
Hi TerryE.

Recruitment, or reactivation here: followed by:


 * Mass revert at CFS


 * Deletion of other users's comments about KCCO's problematic editing at WPI:


 * Unsubtantiable claim that I attacked her, with a threat of blocking, on my userpage.

As you're more involved with these issues, and WP procedures in general, you might know how to check whether these two accounts are in any way connected. Thanks, Sam Weller (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Terry, thanks for your note at my talk. However, please see Sockpuppet investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon. This SPI is not the same as the AN/I against me. It's not at all trivial, and it specifically addresses your concerns about KCCO. Sam Weller (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Viral causes of autism
I am not sure were this conversation has moved too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking over the issues. Made a few comments.  Requesting an apology BTW is bad form Talk:Whittemore_Peterson_Institute.  Would recommend you cross this out.  -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I should have been clearer :-) Well the virus I agree is notable the association between the virus and CFS is barely notable / verifiable. By this I mean that all we have is four pubmed citation and no review articles.   I am sure that this will changed with further research.  HIV too was once in a position like this.  WRT the association all we can say right now is that it is tentative.  We could say that two further studies using different methods failed to confirm the results of the first thus calling it into question.  Not sure I that helps.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Good report
The sock and meat report does look to have merit terry, stay on focus and report the similarities and the dirrerent accounts working together which is the meatpuppetry, have a read of Meat_puppet, it is bad enough here working to improve an article against normal editors without the excesses of sock puppets and meat puppetry. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Terry, that report is closed with some comments that the meat puppetry has clear possibilities, are you going to progress with the report or are you letting it go? Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Infinity and beyond
Hello Terry I do not know how to reply in a 'new section' so I hope riorob will excuse me jumping in here - thank you for your advice. Unfortunately I have replied again on the discussion section on the CFS page - everytime there is a response to my comments I cannot help reacting - I guess it comes from a combination of a lack of experience on Wiki and too much experience being on the receiving end of the treatment handed out to ME sufferers - I now fight and shout at establishment - I WILL learn. Regards Notashrink (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Terry Just read the above (all of it!) Sorry (I apologise a lot) if my edit has caused you any additional stress - not my intention - I quickly understood the original research etc for denial of my edit, but seriously you guys pissed me right off Notashrink (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You just have to get the last word don't you? Explain infinity? :) :0 Notashrink (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Terry - just to show I am not a baddy - I hope this makes you smile - I was going to put it on the CFS page but fortunately I thought better of it

The Truth About Penguins (and CFS research) By Peter Kemp

I wanted to study the nature of penguins.

The 'Canadian' definition of penguins is that they are: • Flightless • They can swim • Largest species up to 1.2 metres tall • They eat mostly fish • They lay 1 or 2 eggs • They generally live in colonies

The 'CDC' definition of these birds is that they are: • Flightless • They sometimes eat fish • They lay eggs • They can swim

The 'Oxford' definition is that these birds are: • Flightless • They lay eggs

The 'Oxford' criteria was chosen for the research as the others were too difficult to apply. 100 subjects who met the research criteria were studied in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The research found that penguins: • Live in deserts • Cannot swim • Are up to 2.4 metres tall • Weigh 200 pounds • Capable of speeds up to 40 mph on land • Are mostly vegetarian

Conclusion:

The research has discovered the truth about penguins. Those funny black and white birds waddling on the ice and swimming in the sea are making fools of everyone. They are not real penguins and should be excluded from all further research into penguins.

Notashrink (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Holding effective discussions
Terry, thanks for your note. I did find one project, but it looks like it's inactive. I've also started to start something in a sandbox. Maurreen (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Any edits or comments you make to the sandbox will be appreciated. Maurreen (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute
I think we were crossposting on this article, I was about to revert and you beat me to it. Ward20 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dont threaten me again please, its very unsavoury behaviour. 86.133.108.188 18:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Craig Cobb
New Message:

Hi TerryE and thank you for your note ...


 * For original content of CCs post see this diff. I would prefer not to leave this stuff on my talk page. -- TerryE (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And another undo -- TerryE (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Craig Cobb has since been blocked for making legal threats. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI-notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --- 2/0 (cont.) 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone has been maliciously impersonating you off-wiki
Looks like someone has set up an account with the name TerryE on Podblanc. See. This is likely an attempt to smear you, possibly by Craig Cobb himself. I just thought I ought to let you know, so you can post a disclaimer on your userpage if you think it's necessary. Nawlinwiki, FisherQueen and I have also been targeted in the same way. Whoever created these fake accounts has also uploaded videos in our usernames with vulgar, racist, and anti-Semitic titles.

I also posted a disclaimer on Talk: Podblanc. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC

Cataracts
Just stumbled on your sandboxed cataract article - nice :) DOHill (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WPI page
The comments are on the talk page. I suggest you read them before arbitrarily reverting them.One000 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no idea there was an edit conflict. I have added all the relevant information to the talk page.One000 (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerns
Regarding this and your continued inexplicable behaviour, here on Wikipedia and also in email form: Calm down. Take a deep breath. What I wrote was, "we can accomplish quite a bit more if we focus on adding to articles instead of attacking other editors and their contributions and deleting verifiable information." Let me put it this way: you've spent scores, probably hundreds of hours preparing filings on me and/or individuals you assume are connected with me, deleting contributions containing verifiable information from reliable sources, writing book-length emails to me about how I am supposedly a sockpuppet, taunting me about my presumed identity and presumed lack of publication record, and more. You've even decided that I am one particular individual, a US citizen, apparently, and you somehow even know her by a given name she does not use, suggesting that you've been doing some private sleuthing to uncover details about "me" or at least about the person you identify with me. This is disturbing and somewhat frightening to me. Please reflect on how your behaviour might appear to me and others. I would be very grateful if you could try to make your Wikipedia experience more about editing and less about me. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you mount this claim in personal terms, I will respond likewise. What I care about on WP is the edit content and  its validity.  I realise that I criticise some of your content, but that because of what content contains in my opinion v.v the RS and the context within the article.   This is about the content, not the editor.


 * Re the US citizen aspect, this was in the context of your statement that "This type of position is known as "technician" in US academic science", which since it was unreferenced and inconsistent with the RS that I gave, so I (possibly wrongly) assumed that you were speaking purely from personal experience, which is why I used the expression "your own US Department of Labor". If you are deeply offended by the "your own" here then WP:AGF and get a life.


 * You keep bringing out the issue out SPIs related to you and have mentioned outing a couple of times. The latest was your comment to this edit  "Removing incredibly offensive word used without connotation in every laboratory in America but apparently placed by a malicious US sockpuppet".   To be quite honest I just get pissed off by these continuous personal attacks that you make about me: SPA, POV, puppet master, ... and I always try to avoid responding likewise, so now you seem to have started accusing yourself on my behalf.  Again very tedious and sometimes too much.


 * My intent in sending you the PM was to set your mind at rest so we could move on: I really don't give a fuck who you are in the real world outside of WP; you have my personal commitment not to discuss any such issue publicly to set your mind at rest; you have my apology for upsetting you over this "foul mouthed lab cleaner" analogy; and you have my request that we at least work together civilly. If you found this disturbing and frightening, then this certainly was not my intent, but it takes all sorts to make this world.   Can I suggest that you seek some private advice from an uninvolved advisor or councillor?  If you feel that I am harassing you then use the appropriate WP procedures.   In the meantime I will continue to focus on the content and not the editor creating it. -- TerryE (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just piecing this together: the fact that I'm concerned by your apparent obsession with me, which has continued for over a year, has involved your researching my off-WP identity and placing subtle or not-so-subtle hints about it in your comments on me, has extended to your writing a computer program for the sole purpose of trying to prove your idea that I am a sockpuppet, and has demonstrably consumed far more of your time than the totality of your actual encyclopaedia editing, means that I should seek therapy? TerryE, yours are not the statements and actions of someone who doesn't "give a fuck who (I am) in the real world", and I hope you will forgive me if I fail to see the professed civility and focus on content here.
 * This is what I would suggest, for what it's worth: the best way to show me that you care about content is to edit articles. Or at least, every now and then, find something to revert or question that I didn't write. When you run into me, as you inevitably will, resist the urge to make the sort of snide comments that have seasoned our interactions. I will try to do the same. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerns
Regarding this and your continued inexplicable behaviour, here on Wikipedia and also in email form: Calm down. Take a deep breath. What I wrote was, "we can accomplish quite a bit more if we focus on adding to articles instead of attacking other editors and their contributions and deleting verifiable information." Let me put it this way: you've spent scores, probably hundreds of hours preparing filings on me and/or individuals you assume are connected with me, deleting contributions containing verifiable information from reliable sources, writing book-length emails to me about how I am supposedly a sockpuppet, taunting me about my presumed identity and presumed lack of publication record, and more. You've even decided that I am one particular individual, a US citizen, apparently, and you somehow even know her by a given name she does not use, suggesting that you've been doing some private sleuthing to uncover details about "me" or at least about the person you identify with me. This is disturbing and somewhat frightening to me. Please reflect on how your behaviour might appear to me and others. I would be very grateful if you could try to make your Wikipedia experience more about editing and less about me. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you mount this claim in personal terms, I will respond likewise. What I care about on WP is the edit content and  its validity.  I realise that I criticise some of your content, but that because of what content contains in my opinion v.v the RS and the context within the article.   This is about the content, not the editor.


 * Re the US citizen aspect, this was in the context of your statement that "This type of position is known as "technician" in US academic science", which since it was unreferenced and inconsistent with the RS that I gave, so I (possibly wrongly) assumed that you were speaking purely from personal experience, which is why I used the expression "your own US Department of Labor". If you are deeply offended by the "your own" here then WP:AGF and get a life.


 * You keep bringing out the issue out SPIs related to you and have mentioned outing a couple of times. The latest was your comment to this edit  "Removing incredibly offensive word used without connotation in every laboratory in America but apparently placed by a malicious US sockpuppet".   To be quite honest I just get pissed off by these continuous personal attacks that you make about me: SPA, POV, puppet master, ... and I always try to avoid responding likewise, so now you seem to have started accusing yourself on my behalf.  Again very tedious and sometimes too much.


 * My intent in sending you the PM was to set your mind at rest so we could move on: I really don't give a fuck who you are in the real world outside of WP; you have my personal commitment not to discuss any such issue publicly to set your mind at rest; you have my apology for upsetting you over this "foul mouthed lab cleaner" analogy; and you have my request that we at least work together civilly. If you found this disturbing and frightening, then this certainly was not my intent, but it takes all sorts to make this world.   Can I suggest that you seek some private advice from an uninvolved advisor or councillor?  If you feel that I am harassing you then use the appropriate WP procedures.   In the meantime I will continue to focus on the content and not the editor creating it. -- TerryE (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just piecing this together: the fact that I'm concerned by your apparent obsession with me, which has continued for over a year, has involved your researching my off-WP identity and placing subtle or not-so-subtle hints about it in your comments on me, has extended to your writing a computer program for the sole purpose of trying to prove your idea that I am a sockpuppet, and has demonstrably consumed far more of your time than the totality of your actual encyclopaedia editing, means that I should seek therapy? TerryE, yours are not the statements and actions of someone who doesn't "give a fuck who (I am) in the real world", and I hope you will forgive me if I fail to see the professed civility and focus on content here.
 * This is what I would suggest, for what it's worth: the best way to show me that you care about content is to edit articles. Or at least, every now and then, find something to revert or question that I didn't write. When you run into me, as you inevitably will, resist the urge to make the sort of snide comments that have seasoned our interactions. I will try to do the same. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Attacking you, reverting your content, spending all my time trying to prove that your a sock puppet and so it goes on. Let's look at the evidence:
 * If you look at my edits to Arcticle space, its over a year since we last had any material interaction.
 * I watch and edit some 30 articles, IIRC you have mentioned in the past editing a lot more. We first became entangled when you started editing the XMRV article and has extended to a few spin-offs that you have created such as the WPI and JM articles.
 * I have reverted your content 3 times this year: and  on this bartender issue which has bounced around many times and this time I gave way.  On the other, I restored your original content.
 * Of your remaining 50 or so edits to XMRV and WPI, I have contested 3 IIRC and supported rest. My issue with these was that the content wording wasn't the same as the RS so why not use the RS.  As these could be viewed as controversial, I sought to resolve these on the talk pages, as we ended up taking 10,000 words of discussion to try to resolve these issues.
 * AFAIK, the only accusation that either of us has made about the other's non-WP activities was this edit where you discussed my off-WP activities.
 * As to the PM, this was an attempt on my part to kill all these attacks and set your mind at rest, and so I gave my word that I would not discuss certain issues publicly. I can't defend myself against fragmentary extracts without breaking this.  It's a matter of my personal standards; I won't do this. Either make it public or take it to Arbcom in its entirety.
 * I am thoroughly sick of all this. Life is too short. -- TerryE (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)