User talk:TopGarbageCollector

Welcome!
Hello, TopGarbageCollector, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, visit the Teahouse Q&A forum, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Srleffler (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Biological effects of Electromagnetic radiation
Hi. I undid your changes to Electromagnetic radiation. The changes you made seem likely to be controversial. Wikipedia requires that information can be backed up by a citation to a "reliable source". It does not appear to me that the BioInitiative Report website qualifies as such, so I have reverted the article to its former state.--Srleffler (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a PhD in biophysics from the University of Cambridge and have a fairly detailed understanding of the literature. Whoever wrote the original text had apparently not read a single one of the many hundreds of papers covering the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.

You have no relevant background in this field, so it is not clear why you believe that you are in a position to judge research which you have not read and which is, in any case, far outside your field of expertise or training. I suggest that a little humility might be appropriate here.

In any case, since you have destroyed my previous comments I have re-written them in more detail: they now include references to specific research.

This time, please have the professional integrity to actually check these before passing judgment on them. You will notice that my analysis, unlike most of the rest of the page, is based on peer-reviewed research. In particular, the original comment that the health effects of EMF are somehow caused by "heating" - which I have removed - was a personal opinion which was not backed up by any citation and which was contradicted by the last twenty years of research in this field.

I will be more than happy to take this matter to arbitration if necessary. It is extraordinarily important for people to be aware of the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation. I strongly believe that Wikipedia - which I use constantly - should be a source of reliable, accurate information, rather than simply reflect the prejudices of a few editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 April 2012‎

Please see Electromagnetic radiation and health where the material you are adding would belong rather than on the general article. [Fine. But remove the completely false statement about EMF only having a "heat" effect. This is nonsense.]

I've removed your addition as it was supported by two primary research articles and a rather dated 1979 article, please carefully read WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You deleted my first comment because it was backed up by a reference to a very comprehensive review of the literature. You deleted my second comment because it was backed up by peer-reviewed research papers. The comment which you replaced it with is backed up by nothing at all.

It is abundantly clear that you are abusing your position as editor and have no respect for the principles of Wikipedia. You obviously don't have a background in scientific research and are confused by such concepts as "articles in peer-reviewed journals" and "seminal research article". Your own article has no citations to back it up.

You are abusing your position as an editor: therefore I have filed complaints about your conduct.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: I will do that in future.

About expertise
>>You say, above:"I have a PhD in biophysics from the University of Cambridge and have a fairly detailed understanding of the literature. Whoever wrote the original text had apparently not read a single one of the many hundreds of papers covering the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. You have no relevant background in this field, so it is not clear why you believe that you are in a position to judge research which you have not read and which is, in any case, far outside your field of expertise or training. I suggest that a little humility might be appropriate here."

>>Part of the struggle you're having here is that Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" which means that a 12-year-old Randy in Boise is completely welcome to edit articles about nuclear physics or the nuances of existentialism.

I am not having a struggle with this. I am having a struggle with the fact that I am unable to correct an obvious mistake because the moron who is editing it is too ignorant and bigoted to accept that his original article may have made an incorrect statement. I am having a struggle with the fact that, when I provide solid citations - from internationally respected peer-reviewed articles - he deletes them for no apparent reason. I am having a struggle with a system which allows an editor to abuse his position of trust without any checks and balances.

In any case a person who is not familiar with the literature is unable to make useful edits or additions to an article. I have no problem with people who are amateurs writing about subjects with which they are familiar. However, a person who has never once read a single paper about the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation is not capable of intelligently editing comments which they cannot understand, nor on evaluating research which they refuse to look at.

Finally, Mr Wales himself says:

"The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable," he said, "and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn't be writing."

Unfortunately the little Hitlers who work as "editors" don't think this.

>>The editorial processes which Wikipedia follows will — eventually — cull out and correct Randy's claims that sword-wielding living-dead skeletons fought in the Peloponnesian War but the processes must be followed. Similarly, edits made by true experts in a field writing within the area of their expertise are just as subject to being challenged as those made by Randy until the experts offering them satisfy Wikipedia's processes (and they're still subject to being challenged even then, '

Unfortunately, this is not how it works in practice.

>>'everything in Wikipedia is always'' subject to challenge).

Obviously not.

For example, it says in the guidelines that "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." Yet this page contains statements which are both demonstrably false and which are not backed up by any citations or references. The truth is that the system is entirely dominated by a small group of "editors" who block all changes whether or not they make sense.

>>which has failed largely because it relies on experts.) We hope you will stay around and contribute your considerable intellectual and stylistic power to Wikipedia,

I am totally disgusted by the way Wikipedia works and will not waste any more time on it. It's obvious that, without any proper system of oversight there is no control on the quality of articles. I will advise my colleagues not to rely on Wikipedia, I will make sure that my students avoid using it and I will strongly advise people not to contribute any money to it.

Interspersed quoted comments extracted from this posting on this page by TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Response comments, above, from TopGarbageCollector 20:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

>>That is a shame. The fact is that Wikipedia is quite candid about the fact that it is a general encyclopedia intended for general use and is not intended for academic-level research.

It's obviously not any use for academic research. However, more seriously, it's useless for casual use as well. If basic mistakes cannot be corrected because of the egos of the editors then we can't trust any of it.

As I said, I am not wasting any more of my time on this nonsense and will warn my students not to trust Wikipedia.

>>See Researching with Wikipedia which explains in some detail Wikipedia's limitations in that regard. If you will sort back through the recent issues of our online newsletter, the Signpost, you will find references to several recent academic studies (there is, I realize, some irony in this) which confirm Wikipedia's general reliability for that purpose.

No doubt commissioned by the same lobby groups which control the content on Wikipedia itself.

Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

About Wikipedia
In case you feel a bit orphaned, you are not alone. Take a look at WP:Editing environment, or Something about Wikipedia. Brews ohare (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit at arbitration pages
I just removed this edit you made, as that is not the right venue for what you were asking. If you want help with a problem you are having, you would be better off using something like the help me template and posting here or at a noticeboard for help. There is also the Help Desk. Hope that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
>>Arrogant editors are a common problem, but I would disagree that the site is "riddled with errors". There are many editors on Wikipedia who devote time to correcting mistakes and improving articles, and I think you will find that, though Wikipedia society is flawed, the core ideals of Wikipedia live on.

The 'core ideals' of Wikipedia died many years ago.

 Liam987  20:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

&#160;


 * As well, referring to an editor as a "wikifag" is a personal attack that can lead to being blocked from editing. This is a cooperative, collegial environment - even with its flaws. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite how the word 'wikifag' can be censored on a site which claims that 'anyone can edit' and 'ignore the rules' is unclear. It's clearly not a 'personal attack', since it refers to all the editors.  In any case, my experience has been that the 'editors' (or whatever you like to call them) have no respect at all for Wikipedia rules.  This place appears to be a lunatic asylum which is run by the lunatics themselves.


 * >>"riddled with errors"


 * I will give you a simple example. The definition of the Sievert was incorrect *on the Sievert main page*.  This is a basic error which has gone unnoticed, presumably, since the text was originally written several years ago.  The text said that the Sievert is equal to the Gray, which is nonsense.


 * I corrected the mistake, and my correction was immediately vandalized by an 'editor'. Another writer noticed that my change was correct and reinstated it.


 * With dysfunction on this scale, it's a wonder that anybody expects Wikpedia to have credibility.

In response to your feedback
We try on average to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for your contribution.

Please sign your posts on talk pages; see: Signatures. Please use indents to make the conversation easier to follow; see: Indentation.

Ariconte (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

No original research
I get that you are unhappy with Wikipedia, but is not the way to show your disapproval or get errors corrected. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia in order to make a point. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Hi Garbagecollector,

Reliable and secondary sources are not mutually exclusive. We like secondary sources, because they should have had a fact check of the primary source of information. Now, I admit some secondary sources are definitely not trustworthy, but if you have issues with a source, please discuss them on the Talk page of the relevant article. If there is an example you want to discuss, you can leave a message on my Talk page. Regards,

Pim Rijkee (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

&#160;