User talk:Yobol

Vaccine Controversy
I appreciate the message, but I would prefer next time that you ask for specifics before changing my edits - simply because I did not follow customary practices does not negate my reasons for the edit. I understand Undue Weight. My main argument is with argument placing, tone, style, and word usage. I have posted my reasons in detail in the Talk section under the POV section. Perhaps we can collaborate there. Fontevrault (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to communicate
Apologies if this is an inappropriate use of your talk page, feel free to delete this in revision. I am trying to achieve a more efficient understanding of how Wikipedia works, or rather of why it works so well. I am a neurobiologist teaching a neurobiology of disease course at Brandeis University. I am deeply impressed with the accuracy of the content in this article, and well, frankly, of almost every article I have consulted (much more so in the realms of academic inquiry than popular culture, but that is not so hard to understand). This has gotten me interested in the process itself. The topic that brought me here (autism and the thimerisol controversy) is arguably one of the most subject to distortion and disinformation on the web. I am sure your own personal intellectual clarity (as well of course to that of the other editors) contributed to the quality of the article. But that is not what surprises me. Why are the crazies (if I may short-cut with this characterization) unable to subvert this content? I am not really interested in the answer with respect to this article, but more globally. (I realize that perhaps if I studied the Wikki culture as embodied in the many help pages etc. I might figure this out in time, but I am hoping for a quicker pointer as a help in the mean time). I do not find it shocking that some articles are to the point and accurate. I find it shocking that virtually all of the articles I consult are. This suggest the editing policies are remarkably resilient and efficient. I am curious as to your view of which policies contribute most to this state of affairs.

feel free to delete this and answer via email (nelson@brandeis.edu) and of course I realize you may not have time to answer in any event. But I appreciate any help you can provide.

best,

Sacha

Sachanelson (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream Media
I know that being bold is one of the tenets, but there is a line between being bold, and unilaterally making decisions to do things that are not warranted. If you have a problem with the page, why not try to fix it instead of deleting it?  Josh  ua In  gram   23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this to a redirect, eliminating the imported material, because Conservapedia's licence terms are not free enough—they reserve the right to revoke their licence, making it impossible to assert (the irrevocable) CC-BY-SA 3.0 in good faith. Please see this article's talk page for details. TheFeds 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Request For Mediation
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Vaccine_controversy has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Vaccine_controversy and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Sebastian Garth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Acceptance by mediator
Hi Yobol. I am willing to mediate this case. If you are ready to proceed, let's begin on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New approach
I've asked some questions in a new section of this title. Would you be able to respond? Sunray (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to close
I'm not sure whether you saw my note on the mediation talk page, but I am proposing to close the mediation. However, there are some conditions under which we could continue. Any comments? Sunray (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my GF
Please accept that I am editing in good faith. I am a supporter of vaccines and completely against homoeopathy and other unscientific mumbo jumbo. Looking at your edit history, I doubt you are working for industry, but seem more motivated by a concern for the defence of science. I am a brother in arms in this sphere, but I also have concerns about corporations whitewashing products in the face of persistent and justifiable scientific concerns about safety. Even if a chemical only affects a small % of consumers, this needs to be acknowledged. TickleMeister (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Duesberg
Please explain why you've reordered the chronology of the subject's career and removed a citation needed tag for an assertion about what he is best known for. You also undid grammatical improvements and clarifications.
 * The subsequent changes you made look pretty good to me. Can you help reorder the body so it is chronological and the AIDS sections are grouped together? This seems to make the most sense and to be standard. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
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. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental meditation
A user has commented on your position here stating "some external editors progressively changed their position as they received more information". Wondering if you could clarify your position at the RfC Thanks  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Blush
Thanks for fixing this. I read that as the NPOV Noticeboard, not the NPOV article. Fell Gleaming talk 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NP, happens to everyone. Yobol (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thiomersal controversy
The article Thiomersal controversy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thiomersal controversy for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Aaron north (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:V
Hi, you recently commented on a talk page to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. Proposal 5 attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability; it would be great if you could drop by. -- JN 466  22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies and a promise of a fresh start from me
Yobol, it has occurred to me that I have been acting rashly towards your work on the Weston Price article for irrational reasons (probably tied to larger fiasco I've been too involved in recently). My attitude is not deserved and I apologize for it. I'm going to make a concerted effort to work in a collegiate, respectful and thoughtful manner. You don't have to respond even but I wanted you to know that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Price
I haven't been following the developments on the talk page. Reading about dentists is more fun than visiting them, but it's still not my main focus. If there's a particular issue where I can bring my experience or give a policy opinion, I can do that. But if you want to solve all of the problems, or even diagnose the problems, then that's more than I'm up for. I suggest reading about dispute resolution.  Will Beback   talk    10:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Price Sources
You have done good work bringing sources to light (as has Bruce, I think), but you did miss a critical one. http://www.drcat.org/articles_interviews/html/rootcanal.html Just read it, you'll thank me. The middle is where it really picks up. Ocaasi (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a joke, if you didn't get to it yet. This is actually a nice overview of the situation from an Australian dental website http://www.shdc.com.au/Root-Canal-Treatment.html#5. Ocaasi (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I've read it (and others), it's amazing what's presented as medical facts on the internet. I agree that Bruce has done a good job finding sources on Price (in general) and he has good intentions.  I just think his approach to this one issue is incorrect, and I suspect he's very much like me - very stubborn once something gets into his head. Yobol (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You mentioned Ludwigs in your recent edit comment, was that in reference to a discussion somewhere about an 'overexuberant reviewer'? If so, can you point me to it... thx Ocaasi (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was from Ludwigs2's edit comments dated 11/1. He removed several comments like that. Yobol (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Christine Maggiore
I've never new at an human-rubber was! Now I know... How do you define a "reliable source"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V0db (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

okay

 * fine then, i made a mistake thanksf or reverting it User:Smith Jones 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Np, just trying to keep it from being cluttered. Yobol (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this - I think that's a clear improvement in sourcing. The old source was bugging me, because it was clearly so far below where the bar should be for an encyclopedia. Thanks for improving it, and more generally for your diligent and constructive editing across numerous articles. MastCell Talk 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, unfortunately these medical fringe articles are too full of them. Oh well, I guess that just gives me something to look forward to working on after I get through with these laetrile articles. :) Yobol (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been Reported for violating the Edit War policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.251.228 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the proper link, and yes, we're considering a community ban of this anti-fluoridation fanatic who is giving their cause a very bad name. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Semmelweis Awards
Well done pulling up that stuff. You might find that IP editors editing history fascinating, just saying.... Thanks for all of your hard work. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone really surprised that one form of denialism flows so easily into others? Yobol (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, indeed, though it is quite a list... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In for a penny...Yobol (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources: you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Happy editing! Zachlipton (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fluoride
You are probably holding a conversation with a sockpuppet at Talk:Water fluoridation. Almost every unregistered or newly registered editor there is trying to weasel a conversation as a route to validation. The risks associated with water fluoridation is just not a theme that engages many serious people. I am not sure, but the pattern is familiar. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it looks like GeneralMandrakeRipper and his merry band, but I try to follow WP:AGF as much as possible. I see no harm in pointing out relevant policies in the chance this is an actual new editor, but I do not plan on having protracted discussions with them either. Thanks for the heads up though. Yobol (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured. I feel the same way, i.e. that some advice or reminders of guidelines would be useful to communicate. I have tried many times because these are not intrinsically stupid people, but I have kind of given up because there is no conversation.  Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You reverted my edit, how does my addition contradic fluoride as a cavity prevent? "A study has show the reason for cavity prevention is not due to fluoride hardening tooth enamel, rather fluoride is acting to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth. " I read through the what is a good source, why is this a bad source? I also stated that a source, as to not imply that this has been studied to death. It seemed like recent enough information since there hasn't been a good proposed reason for how flouride prevents cavities.Hardkhora (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Update (some further research): I get that finding evidence can be hard because there is a bunch of oppinion and-or unhelpful science, aka junk science but from my research is that the mechanism of cavity prevent has changed some over time, such as the idea that as a baby if you take it in it will help create stronger teeth. Some sources that I went through.

I can find a lot of sources that make the claim fluoride hardens enamel but only at the surface level when applied topically: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192485&resultClick=3. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=331502&resultClick=3. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/toothdecay.html. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=266513&resultClick=3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10553252. http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/325151. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23712030. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b155e571-be97-4754-adf4-d9ea435b3a05%40sessionmgr115&vid=3&hid=112. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=417ee6cb-6664-42f8-b92c-360150f98d8f%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=103&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZXM%3d#db=ddh&AN=36525036. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7497353. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=bb7ca822-0f1c-40e0-915a-b93cc4698cfa%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=103&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZXM%3d.

As an example of unhelpful talk: http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question01.html http://"fluoridealert".org/issues/caries/topical_systemic/ Talks about the main prevention method being topical

Some other sources: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-3/5.htm Disagrees but says "No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention."

http://teethgeek.com/mechanisms-of-fluoride-in-caries-prevention/ Brings up modern questions, but doesn't make any claims.

While none of these show directly what my other source claims, it seems reasonable to infer that there haven't been new studies to confirm the claims or deny them.

I realize now I should have made it clear with the words: "the main cavity fighting benifit is claimed to be..." because like I said this is one source but I can find countless sources that project or hypothosis the mechinsism for cavity prevent. The idea is that some combintion of efects are preventing tooth decay but it seems like a lot of data but not a lot of conclusion on the main cause. The point being my source doesn't say that it doesn't harden enamal rather they found another mechanism that prevents cavities. Thinking now, would it be better to say that: "a source claims flouride aslo acts to keep tooth decaying bactria off teeth by making it harder for them to stay attached to teeth"?Hardkhora (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would take this to the article talk page, but I'm not sure that the sources above support the text change that the mineralization hypothesis is incorrect. My suggestion is to take this to the article talk page, with specific recommendations for the changes you want to make and the source you wish to source that change to. Yobol (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

About AIDS Denialists
Hi buddy. We are men of ilustration and enlightening. So, I'm still very surprised that you keep on erasing my contributions about AIDS Denialism. Your argument of "Neutrality laxness" seems to me nonesensed at all. In any paragraph I wrote is a sentence which contains a personal opinion or a subjective issue. I've just added the most recent news about this aspect. Is this wrong??

I'll remind you, just in case, what I did. I changed some terms and words used in the article, which seems to me pejorative and subjective. I added a most recent list of Nobel Awarded AIDS denialists and the updated point of view of Dr. Montagnier's theory about AIDS, which amazed both dissidents and officialists. What's wrong about that?? Moreover, I wrote the full diagnose of death of Christine Maggiore (hallmark AIDS pneumonia...) for enhancing the fact that she, paradoxically, died of AIDS, so...

Even if there might have been mistakes in the editing: Is that a reason for fully erasing my contributions?? If you do think my editing is not neutral: why, instead of erasing it and leaving the article in his original state (and believe me, mate, is nor neutral or updated at all), didn't you just make the corrections so it can look more neutral and clear?? Wouldn't be that more fittable for Wikipedia's mission??

Anyway, inverse psychology is more than usual. You don't need to be Karl Jung for knowing that neither Sigmund Freud. Perhaps that article, in its original form, does reflect someone's opinion and by accusing me of Neutrality Laxness, actually you are defending someone's vision. Hope I'm fully mistaken with this.

Hoping we can achieve enlightening, neutral enlightening, greets you kindly: Milikguay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milikguay (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I must say that I do not fully comprehend what you are trying to get across here, but from what I can see, you believe your edits qualify as neutral. I disagree, and would like you to take your proposed edits to the talk page of said article where it can be discussed at length there with the rest of the community. Yobol (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. That's exactly what I'm proposing, man. Adding new important information, that's all!! Milikguay (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yo
Not my intent to start an edit war, just wasn't sure if you knew why I was removing it in first place

Will be over to talk page later, but thought should clear the air :) Egg Centric (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Neat
Did you see? Apparently you're my sockpuppet. Or the other way around. We should give each other barnstars! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome. No, no, I'm definitely the sockpuppet. I don't even have a user page or a fancy sig like you - that's the dead giveaway. And how does he know this isn't our...er, my...real name? Yobol (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I should edit that page more often so I could be a sockpuppet too, as I like both your editing, and, well I just want to be like you guys....  Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The more the merrier! And don't sell your contributions short, either.  You do lots of good work, too, just keep it up. :) Yobol (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be the bad cop sockpuppet account, I like to swear. Who wants to be good cop, and who wants to be indifferent cop?  Also, we should occasionally !vote against each other in AFD and other discussions so our sockpuppeting is more subtle.  Now, I'm the deletionist account, so we should write down who is an inclusionist.
 * Incidentally, do we remember why we took that long break between July, 2007 and January, 2009? Did we forget the password for the Yobol account?  And I didn't realize we were so interested in animal cognition, since I spent most of my time (with this account) bashing mediocre fantasy authors.  Frankly I don't know how we segregated our contributions that well, now I can't remember what's my account for criticizing poorly-done science versus badly-written derivative trash versus...I don't even remember what my Dbrodbeck account was for.
 * Damn, this sockpuppeting thing is hard work. Way, way harder than just digging up sources to substantiate points.  Hardly seems worth it really.  And we should really pick a pronoun for us, I'm having a hard time telling if I'm a hive entity, confused individual or a royal personage.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe we err I or (man this is hard to keep straight) invented this account because we all like hockey, video games, and psychology so much.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh! I call "indifferent cop" for this account. We're too lazy to be good.  Now that we've been "caught", can we claim "split personality" as a defense?  Apparently when we're on this account, we have an unhealthy fascination with vaccination.  The Dbrodbeck account seems much more fun, need to spend more time on that. (Yeah, I'm thinking royal we is the way to go). Yobol (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You know if you spell dbrodbeck backwards you get Lobby, oh wait.... The dbrodbeck account got a flu shot this year and asked the MD if he would get autism, just for fun.  OK, the dbrodbeck account should be the good cop I think.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definitely time... it's been awhile now since I retired my bad-hand sockpuppet account. :P MastCell Talk 04:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh, this sockpersonality hates hockey. Can we keep that straight?  I did get a flu shot though.  Yobol, looks like you are the only personality that didn't, so you might have to get H1N1 from some tainted pork and die.  Don't worry, you'll be resurrected as Boyol, a smart-talking hermaphrodite with super-powers.  One thing will be helpful, I think all personalities are Canadian.
 * Sigh. I miss OrangeMarlin.  Always made my civility look good in comparison.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah...Canadian...anhwho, I always marvel at the civility you guys have to the patience to show with all the nonsense you have to put up with. As my watchlist has grown, so has the number of times I just want to reach through the screen and smack some sense into people.  I think I might have some anger management issues - I blame the fluoride in the water. :| Yobol (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha, you're not talking about OrangeMarlin...it definitely helps when you consistently win every single battle a POV-pushing douchebag. I personally find writing FAQs for fringe pages quite satisfying. Also helps to take a break now and again.

But really, the best medicine is having all the right sources. Any moron can argue with an editor, but none can argue with a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to break into your wonderful conversation, but I just found that last sentence hilarious. Oh, if only that were true :) NW ( Talk ) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For me it comes with my job. I teach intro psych now and then and have to deal with many claims of the paranormal.  A student once claimed to have been cured of her addiction to nicotine by hypnosis.  I explained that the success rate of that therapy was the same as cold turkey.  She got quite upset.  Eventually she dropped the class...  Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FAQ - now there's a good idea. I can think of a couple of pages loaded with SPAs that would benefit from one... I hear ya about the sources though.  One thing I was consistently marveled at was User:Eubulides and the way he would calmly deal with POV pushers by just throwing RS after MEDRS at them.  Too bad he hasn't been around in a while...Yobol (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep hoping that Eub is editing as a sockpuppet somewhere. S/he was indeed a fantastic editor and it was a terrible loss when s/he left.  Hope springs eternal though - have you ever met User:TimVickers or User:SandyGeorgia?  They are my gold standards for civil editing.  However, any account that has access to a decent journal library is usually a happy, smackdown-enabled account.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't run into them much from my little corner of Wikipedia, though from what I've seen they are excellent contributors. Some good people to emulate - User:MastCell and User:2over0 and others also very good at dealing with POV pushers civilly.  Need more of their like and less of the POV pushers - not only do the POV pushers not add anything to the encyclopedia, I'm sure they eventually wear down and drive away the good editors in the bargain. Yobol (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TV and SG are extremely prolific and great at responding to questions (TV is usually a great source for article reprints too). You've only 2100 edits and are coming in at a time when editing in general on wikipedia seems to be slowing down considerably, if you spend enough time here you'll probably see them.  Mastcell and 2over0 I've interacted with a fair number of times, both are excellent in my experience.
 * You might be interested in WP:CPUSH. Unfortunately it hasn't reached level of even a guideline and would be impractical to implement, but usually the community can sniff out a POV pusher on AN or ANI without much problem.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Geeeeez, I just heard my name here-- a year too late! My, how things change-- now the place is such a circus they routinely haul me off to ANI, and folks like TV and MC are dropping like flies. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to my job I can get pretty much any journal article, if anyone ever needs one just drop me a line. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And if Dbrodbeck isn't around, feel free to drop me a line. NW ( Talk ) 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offers, I have access through my job as well. I wish I were as confident at the community being able to deal with POV warriors as WLU...we've had numerous SPAs at the aspartame group of articles being an enormous time sink for months now with no end in sight, despite accusations of shilling for Big Pharma, etc.  ANI has been absolutely worthless in this regard. Ah well, I guess being accused as part of a conspiracy on the talk page may just mean someone's doing something right in keeping the conspiracy-mongering off the real article... :D Yobol (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've three offers to give me sources. It's a race to see who can find this one the fastest. GO!

Actually, I'm not sure how hard this will be to find. If anyone can find it, let me know and I'll send you an e-mail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am having trouble getting it while at home, so I have emailed the University Librarian to get it for me, hurry up Ken (for that is his name) I want to win this .... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your prize is to damned with faint praise. I'm planning on "my, yes, what an adequate job."  Not even an exclamation point.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My institution doesn't have a subscription to that journal either...sounds like a real gem. Go go gadget librarian!Yobol (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have a subscription, but there is a problem with the Wiley database at our end right now, as soon as I get it, I will pass it on. Ken is working on it, well actually I think he is at a hockey game right now as it is Friday night, but, he knows about it....  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You might want to look here, or not....
You have been mentioned here, thought you should know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Again.2C_at_aspartame_controversy Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Laugh. First time someone mentioned me on ANI, WP:BOOMERANG was invoked and they were warned. 2nd time, they were community banned, and now 3rd time has a block associated. Sadly, I doubt this will have any effect on people's tendency to invoke a food industry conspiracy here on Wikipedia. I must say, the block did restore some of my confidence in Wikipedia, though... Yobol (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Same reaction here yeah. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk page violations
Just to let you know: I plan to remove clear talk page violations from the AIDS denialism page. After being away from Wikipedia since August, I'm amazed that certain denialist agenda editors continue to waste so much of your (and everyone's) valuable time with fruitless debate. Please object and discuss if you disagree with my position, but I strongly oppose the abuse of Wikipedia as a publicity tool for extreme fringe ideas and feel that a hard line on violations is warranted. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. About time we do something more constructive than beat our head against that POV wall over and over again...Yobol (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ANI regarding edit warring, meatpuppetry, etc. The discussion is about the topic Aspartame controversy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortale (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Located here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You can probably guess what the merits of the complaint are without even looking at it! Egg Centric (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's true of any given AN/I complaint. MastCell Talk 00:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good times. Short of topic bans, I don't foresee this disruption ending in this article. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A block and some warnings have been issued. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is hope for an end to the constant yammering? Yobol (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the subjects you edit in, not a hope in hell. You're going to be fighting wilful ignorance till you die or stop editing. Maybe the precise nature of the woo will change, and the next great killer is, I dunno, LEDs or something, but the woo ain't going away. Sorry! Egg Centric (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just had to stomp out those embers of hope, didn't you? Yobol (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignorance is infinite, while patience is not. Ultimately, you will lose patience with the unchecked flow of ignorance, at which point you'll be blocked for incivility. The goal is to accomplish as much as possible before that inevitability comes to pass. MastCell Talk 04:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So many optimists around here. :) Yobol (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Leukemia
I have responded on the talk page for Leukemia and would like to hear your interpretation of the sources I have provided and particularly how it constitutes undue weight.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Weston Price
I don't have a problem with your removal of the rest of BruceGrubb recent edits. I find this all very frustrating. Note the new comments at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. He appears to have great difficulty understanding and applying WP:DR, WP:CON, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, etc, but I think some sort of response would be helpful, especially at NPOVN, where no one else has responded yet. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, he has a bad habit of not notifying the respective talk pages/editors about these noticeboard postings. Responded to NPOVN, looks like others have already responded at RSN. This is all very tedious. Yobol (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, you told me to ask if I had questions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Synethos And well since you're the only one I know here. I decided to do so :P

How do I add (legal) pictures? As I want to add one to this article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_of_shapes Preferably from here: http://coates.ma.ic.ac.uk/fanosearch/ But I'm not sure if I can, etc.

Thanks, --Synethos (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have any experience adding images, but guidelines/policies that would be helpful are likely WP:Images, WP:Picture tutorial, WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. Hope that helps! Yobol (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

talk about it
I started the conversation here: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Already responded. Yobol (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WAP
I encouraged Bruce, seriously, to publish his research independently. It's really good stuff, interesting perspective, completely OR. Basically, the issue is that he's using sources which are ancient. They may not be purely primaries, but if this was a medical article, they wouldn't even be looked at they are so old. I think anything from before 1980 should be considered a historical source requiring his original research to determine its current relevance and significance. Of course there is not HISTRS, like MEDRS, but maybe that will help. Or give me the exact problem with his edits (I think it's synthesis from old sources), and I'll look around for a clearer explanation. Ocaasi (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same old synthesis problem. He's actually found a couple of good new sources, but continues to try to synthesize material to fit some preconceived notion about Price which I can't explain. That, in addition to his tendency to post walls of quotes, makes discussing anything with him beyond tedious. He should try to get it published; at least then we'd be able to use it as a source.  But I'm finding it tedious to wade through his same old arguments over and over again; any nudge to ask him to stop the coatracking of FIT in the Price article would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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 are involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 09:57, 23 February 2011


 * I'm thinking it's time for an RFC/U. Think it over for a day or two:  they take a while to draft, and you'll want to have it procedurally wikilawyer-proof as soon as it goes live.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Never been a part of one nor even seen one done. I guess I'll see how he reacts to outside input before doing anything that would eat up my time, which is in short supply on here anyways. Yobol (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good fight
I like what you're doing. And ignore all that civility bullshit. It's better to be right, backed by evidence, than cave into the whining of the pseudoscience and junk medicine pushing crowd. IMHO. :) LeftCoastMan (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but ignoring civility would get me kicked off of here fairly quickly given the controversial areas I tend to edit in. Just trying to make Wikipedia better one edit at a time. :) Yobol (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

hi.
aids denialism. my question is 'what's the deal there'? can you answer or does the article actually.. is there fatty foods make you fat denialism? ya know-- why holocaust denialism exists I can get my head around a little bit. does that make sense?

I will look at the article closely & follow up if I am still not sure. S*K*A*K*K 16:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm not sure I understand your question. If you are asking me why people believe in such a thing, the psychology behind it is largely outside my area of expertise, but Michael Specter's book "Denialism" may be a good place to start (haven't read it, but was recommended to me). Yobol (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Autism lead section
Hi Yobol,

I was wondering why the scientific journal of the study took by Dr. Doreen Granpeesheh at the Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD), who reported cases of recovered children, cannot be added as a source in the article.

Thanks for your time.

ATC. Talk 03:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 2 main reasons why I thought the review was more appropriate. First, the lead of the article should summarize the information in the article; it would therefore be unusual to use new sources in the lead that are not in the body of the article. Second, the preferred type of sources for medical claims (see WP:MEDRS) are secondary reviews. The article you cite is a primary study, and therefore not a preferred source. Yobol (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Coconut oil further reading
Are you aware of the discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Older sources are often useful reading. Do you have a better source than World Oilseeds for the chemistry of coconut oil? Do you have a better work on the late XXth century history of processing in 3rd world countries than Grimwood? --Bejnar (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not. Thank you for the notice, I will respond there. Yobol (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

PPNF
Hi Yobol, I just started an article for the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, which actually preceded the Weston A. Price Foundation significantly. If you want to stop in and help out with sourcing, or check its descriptions, that would be great. I think the FIT situation is at least moving a bit in a better direction, although there are bigger differences about how to treat sources (and which sources to treat). Anyway, cheers, Ocaasi c 08:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually surprised when I didn't see this article when I first editing the Weston Price article; I'll try to get to it when I can, but real life has kept my time on here short, and I've had a few articles I've been wanting to update on the back burner recently. Interestingly, one of them is the organic food article and the nutritional qualities of organic v. conventional foods which should tie in to the Price Pottenger article as well (already updated the safety section of organic food recently). Yobol (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Edit War" concerning article on Duesberg Hypothesis
This sequence of edits was initiated by the removal (with no discussion of the type you recommend) of a minor edit I made in two places in the article. My attempt to compromise by accepting the other contributor's stated point for the edit was met by its removal again by the other editor. I then responded by tagging the article as POV, since it does not present a balanced and neutral view of Dr. Duesberg's views, and added my reasons to the Discussion page. So please clarify what your objection is. Thanks.Roberterubin (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of reverting and re-adding information that is objected to, discuss on the talk page. There is almost never a reason to revert more than 3 times in a day, and you will be blocked if you do so. Yobol (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, the policy applies to the other editor as well, and to you also. You'll note that the only initial objection mentioned to my two edits had to do with my insertion of "majority", and I subsequently removed that. But the first edit, referring to Kary Mullis' support of Duesberg, was also removed.  It was only after three of these had been done, that the other editor posted his rationale on the Discussion page. By the way, I do not believe Professor Duesberg is correct, but I do believe an article stating his views should not be contaminated by bias, which this one surely is.Roberterubin (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, the warning was given to you as you seem to be an unexperienced editor based on your edit count, and I wanted to explain this bright line policy as well as prevent you from doing something that could get you blocked. Any further discussion about the Duesburg hypothesis article should take place at the article talk page, and not here. Yobol (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. This editor has about as many edits to the talk page of the Duesberg article as he does to that case page. Yobol (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Note
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 10:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * WLU it is impolite and a bit dubious to leave cryptic notes like this. It opens the door to speculation that you and Yobol are surreptitiously co-ordinating your actions.  I would request that if you talk about me in the future you do so clearly and plainly out in the open.  Thanks.   Lambanog (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to do it surreptitiously, I would have used e-mail. This is the kind of brief, neutral note to interested parties that is supported by WP:CANVAS.  You may read it as cryptic, I'm simply not bothering to include details when they are all on your talk page.
 * Claiming this is some sort of sneaky, behind the scenes dealing is absurd considering it's on a talk page, and all I'm doing is pointing two (the other party is Ocaasi, but I'm sure you already knew that) interested parties towards my notice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't know that until you told me on the other page. It's an improvement WLU, please keep it up. Lambanog (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and you could have asked me this question on my talk page instead of cluttering up Yobol's. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note, I was thinking the same thing. Responded there. Yobol (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh
I wish I were across this stuff a bit better. What do these people think? Do they imagine there isn't an autism researcher who wouldn't sell his soul for a cure? Grrrrrrr! Sorry. Just had to vent. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A very wise Wikipedian once made an incisive and apropos comment here on this page. How do you get into the mind of a denialist to figure out what they're thinking ("Of course the WHO, FDA, CDC, National Academies of Sciences, etc. etc. are in on the conspiracy to prevent the spread THE TRUTH(tm) about thimerosal!")?  Yobol (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was great. Thanks :) I'm thinking of asking him if he believes the Queen is a lizard. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SHUN is starting to look like a real good idea, btw. They'll probably leave soon if everyone stopped paying so much attention to them. Yobol (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a decent article on that very subject by Chris Mooney: NW ( Talk ) 23:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your input at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome Ward20 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That comment on talk:autism
I was going to use one of the lines that I use on student essays that are confusing "I know what those words mean, but not in that order" but thought the better of it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, good one. I was about to make a snarky comment but I thought better of it too. What's interesting is that the paragraph appears grammatically correct (nouns, verbs, etc in the right order) and yet it still makes no sense.  Hopefully they'll reply so we can get a translation. Yobol (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should consider the possibility that you're interacting with computer-generated text; see Mark V Shaney. I've actually considered building software which would programatically create realistic-sounding Wikipedia talk-page posts, for the lulz. The simplest approach would be to use a relevant context-free grammar combined with a random-number generator, a la SCIgen (a program which generates scientific papers, some of which have been unwittingly accepted for presentation at various meetings). Slightly more complex, but also more interesting, would be to use an order-k Markov chain, a la Mark V Shaney. This latter approach would work like this: you have a bot download - let's say - the 500 busiest talk pages on Wikipedia and parse them to construct the Markov model. Then, you use the model to construct realistic-sounding posts. Given a sufficiently large training text, you can get surprisingly good results - for instance, an order-8 Markov model trained on the King James Bible can produce impressively biblical output. The output is often along the lines of "grammatically correct but makes little sense", but given the baseline level of sense evident on Wikipedia talk pages, it would be interesting to see if such probabilistically-generated posts stood out in any way from background. Anyhow, just a thought. MastCell Talk 18:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I say we do it and write a paper, heck, I was thinking of applying for promotion next year... In all seriousness, that is really cool.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually this reminded me a lot of the Automatic Complaint-Letter Generator I've seen plague multiple forums on the interwebs. I think that experiment would probably fool people for a while, which is an indictment of the level of real discussion that takes place on article talk pages...Yobol (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have always been partial to the Postmodern Essay Generator Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, couldn't tell the difference. Yobol (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of this. Dbrodbeck, if you're serious, I am (half-)serious as well, although I suspect that time spent on this endeavor will actually work against real-life promotion in my case. :P The cool thing about a Markov model is that it could be dynamically "taught" by feeding it relevant texts, which is way neater than a MadLibs-expansion-type approach used by the Complaint Letter Generator et al. The model would be fairly easy to construct. The biggest technical hurdle for me would be parsing talk pages - for instance, I'm not good enough with regular expressions to figure out the best way to remove signatures from talk pages. It's possible someone else already has a solution, though, or there are various hacks to get around it. MastCell Talk 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I too am half serious... It might be a fun project. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You know you're a nerd when you find this insightful, funny, and had an idea this might be a good teaching tool for your students... Thanks for introducing me to that site, now I have more places to kill with my time. Yobol (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have that comic on my door at the University.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * xkcd is the gift that keeps on giving. You might want to add this one to your didactic material, although this is my personal favorite. MastCell Talk 21:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you still working on the Mary G. Enig article?
I feel the time has come to remove the banners. All of the advocacy problems seem to be cleared up, and there are quite a lot of sources for an article this size. Not surprisingly at least one editor disagrees and at least one agrees with me. I am attempting to build a consensus within the sometimes hostile environment over there and it has been trying. I must admit I have not kept as cool a head as I should. Any input you may have would be appreciated. Colincbn (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

AIDS Denialism - Adding
Hi! Well, that info I'm adding is something new presented by the denialists. Is Etienne de Harven's position of HIV as an HERV. It was published last year and caused some disrupt among them, specially with the Perth Group. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons presented it. Well, they are not the most reliable source of the world, as I told you before, but it is a somehow acceptable source from the denialist guys. I think is a respectable info we can add, as at least, is sourced enough. Milikguay (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Take relevant questions about articles to the article talk page, where others can comment. I do not comment on specific article questions on this talk page. Yobol (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg
Is back at Talk:Aspartame controversy, I thought you might want to know..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. What's sad is he appears to have been counting down the days until his topic ban ran out. Yobol (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So it seems, and bringing back dorway.com again. Ahh well...  Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, how many times does someone need to be pointed to WP:MEDRS before they actually look at it? How much time can one editor waste of everyone else on that page before they're not welcome anymore? Yobol (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor assistance
This is just to  let  you  know that  an article you may have contributed to  is the subject  of a discussion  at Editor assistance requests. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Beat you by mere seconds...
to a citation of When did you stop beating your wife?! ;) &mdash; Scientizzle 20:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * *shakes fist* Great minds...:P Yobol (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Stroopwafel
Remember to eat plenty of organic stroopwafels while working on Wikipedia; they can cure any disease known to mankind. Greetings from Amsterdam, Wasbeer 11:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC) p.s. Would you please be so kind to take a look at Adelle Davis, I've used the NPOV template on it because the article is extremely one-sided.


 * I can confirm that they are very tasty! JFW &#124; T@lk  00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, look tasty! Will take a closer look when I have more of a chance; these "diet" BLPs tend to be WP:COATRACKs.  At first blush, these appears to be the case with, poor in-line citations to boot, making verification difficult. Sigh. Yobol (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As an update, there appears to be some good biographical sources for her; will try to add them as I have a chance (there's about a 100 other articles I've been wanting to improve too). Yobol (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are awesome. Thanks a lot! I give you a lot of wikilove because you did an amazing job rewriting Adelle Davis! Greetings from Amsterdam, Wasbeer 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yobol (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Objections to evolution
1. Pls. explain why you are not able to enlist your objections against my text that you erased:. Do you still hold a position that the text should be kept out? If yes, what is your reasoning? Stating "Numerous objections" without specifying a single one is hardly to be considered as valid evidence that my text is violating any of the WP rules. Should I interpret your refraining from objection specification in a way that your position has changed and you do not dispute my text anymore? Pls. explain. 2. Pls. also explain why you had erased the Wikipedia-sourced image. Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User page deletion
I hope it's something benign and not to do with my or Mastcell's prediction here. You're doing a good job, don't let the bastards get you down. Egg Centric 18:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh no, my user page has been redlinked for a while - never found a need to have one. Someone erroneously posted a message to it probably thinking it was my talk page. Just had it removed, is all.  It won't be this easy to get rid of me. :) Yobol (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Note (sequel)
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you
here. Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)--
 * Thanks for the kind words. Looks like an important topic to be addressed, it will be interesting to see how ArbCom does with it. Yobol (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of an octopus, and the terms are vague so I'll be very impressed if they can draft something useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be too. I would think a case with such a wide scope would be difficult to have specific findings useful enough to actually settle the current multitude of issues. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy
Hello,

Since it seems we agree to disagree, I have opened a dispute resolution. All I am asking for is that both sides of this are fairly represented. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean that millions of other people who do are wrong. Let's just let anyone reading this entry understand that there are studies and books that support it and those that don't. Nutritiondr (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit war report
I have made an edit war report involving you at EWN should you wish to remark or comment there. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Mercury
Hi Yobol you deleted a entry in the mercury article after a short time it was marked as obscure. It might be better to do a google scholar search and a google book search before deleting content. There is evidence that that part of the article contained valuable informations.

--Stone (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, I should have done my due diligence. I have updated the article. Yobol (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sugar
You removed my edit from Sugar stating it "looks like synth". If you read all the sources, along with other references on the same page, you will note that the WHO and FAO have come to this conclusion from a series of meta-studies (not included within this latest section but quoted elsewhere in the article) and these specific references added here are research that pick up this issue directly. Please check the references in detail and, if you still believe this is synth, add the comments on to the Sugar discussion page for everyone to discuss. Thanks.--Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I checked the sources and can see that some of them do not fully support the entire sentence. I have now segregated these out, and only left the citations that do fully support it. I have still summarised some of the sources with their slightly different takes on the subject, and this gives more of a flavour of the differing approaches and theories while still leaving the original part of the switch from fats to refined carbohydrates linked to the citations that support it. I am not sure some of the language used is the easiest to read, but there should be no concern of synthesis, or actually, probably more that citations were linked to a sentence where they did not fully support it. Though I was a little surprised at the synth comment from the first two citations I checked again, you were right about some of the other articles I had added in to support the case, and splitting these out should have made that more clear. Thanks for pointing this out.--Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is wanted
Please provide your input here on the legitimacy and desirability of accepting external links in relevant Wikipedia articles to MedMerits, a new and freely accessible online resource on neurologic disorders. Presto54 (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

vitamin C megadosage
Nice write up and sourcing. Kudos. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, only about a few thousand more Wikipedia articles on my to do list...Yobol (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You know that list never gets shorter, right? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh...Yobol (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Astrology edit
I suggest you raise your concern on the talk page of the article for discussion and evaluation. I don't see how you can claim that is OR myself, but you should raise your view for the concern of the editors involved in that content -- Zac  Δ talk! 01:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

More specific RfC on astrology
Thank you for your input on the RfC on Astrology. Because I was informed that the original RfC was too vague and general, I've reformulated it with specific concerns. The reformulated RfC can be found here: [] Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology
I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac  Δ talk! 15:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not do vandalism
Wikipedia can not censore scientific articles and can not delete them. Obvioulsy it has to be noted that it is just research, but removal of citations is vandalism (what you do)--Moscone (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, disagreement about the relevance of specific content is not "vandalism". Please see what is not vandalism. MastCell Talk 17:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, do have citations for this? Can you really say that the scientific articles are not relevant? Or it just censorship for protection of the pharmaceutical profit?--Moscone (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I wasn't able to parse that. Did I say that scientific articles weren't relevant? And while accusing others of being profit-driven pawns of the pharmaceutical industry may be an effective approach elsewhere on the Internet, it's not especially useful here. Would you like to rephrase? MastCell Talk 17:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly being accused of being a shill for the pharmaceutical industry never gets old... WP:AGF, WP:NPA and all that, but I'll respond to the article specific material on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Cite PMID
Hola,

Random point, have you ever used cite pmid? It's great, plug in the PMID after the pipe a la and that's all you need! It creates a template that transcludes the citation information. The only downside is it doesn't auto-fill anymore, so you have to check the refs section to make sure it's actually there; if not, click on the "jump the queue" hyperlink and it'll auto-fill. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually have not used that. Is it as good as diberri (pulls in doi, PMC, etc.)? Yobol (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually, yes. Depends on the individual citation.  Obviously you need a PMID so it only works for medical stuff, I think it actually uses the PMID to pull a DOI then uses cite doi to complete.  The information appears to be drawn directly from the pubmed database, so it should work at least as well as Diberri.  The only downside is you only see the PMID when you're actually editing and if you have a URL that's not a PMC you have to add it manually.  Try it, I think you'll love it.  I find it easier than DB because it never goes down and you don't have to navigate three windows to get the final result.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I'll probably give it a shot. It would be nice not having multiple windows open just to get a ref down. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Couple of issues with it: First, the bot isn't entirely perfect, and you have to watch the output to make sure it gets the page numbers and the capitalization right. Second, I'm super paranoid and don't really want to have 18,000 templates on my watchlist. If it gets vandalized, you won't know about it until you actually stumble upon the page where citation template is transcluded. NW ( Talk ) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The likelihood of that happening is pretty low in my estimation, that's a pretty damned sophisticated vandal; I had a thought that all the pages be semi- or fully-protected once created but it wasn't implemented. The convenience is pretty hard to beat... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Just trying to do my part. :) Yobol (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Reminder
Sarcasm is really helpful: Be direct and try to isolate the behavioral from the talk pages. Behavioral advisories best belong in user talk, at first. Behavioral issues should only be brought into the article discussion if they aren't heeded and are negatively impacting discussion.Novangelis (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are of course correct. I have struck the comment, and will try to avoid this in the future. Yobol (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully the tenor of the discussion will be productive, now.Novangelis (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Differential Diagnosis
Hi, dear! Why should i incorporate Differential Diagnosis into Diagnosis? I'm a doctor, and during my medical education i always have seen in specialised literature Differential Diagnosis as a separate chapter of each nosology unit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljaic (talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * thank you, but nevertheless in such articles as Costochondritis, Crystal_arthropathies Differential Diagnosis is separated, and from medical point of view i think it's 100% right!) i of course respect wiki's rules, but wikipedia is online encyclopedia, and its articles should be academic..) may be i can ask advice of any wiki's administator with medical education? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljaic (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a few administrators on the talk page of the medicine Wikiproject. Feel free to ask them. Yobol (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Admins, by the way, have no special authority on content. Nor am I a physician. But fwiw, and even though I am an admin, it is certainly true that differential diagnosis is a distinct section of any discussion of any disease in the professional literature.   DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC).


 * I'm just following WP:MEDMOS, which states differential diagnosis discussion goes under the section of diagnosis. I'm not sure why we're having this discussion here, rather than on a more appropriate page such as WT:MED or WT:MEDMOS. Yobol (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ralph W. Moss (writer)
You might want to see what I found in Google News Archive.  DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will respond in detail when I get a chance. Yobol (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology
Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: []. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

thermisoal and the 1930 tests results and all 22 test subjects died
Quote, "Lilly tested Thimerosal in 1930, giving it to 22 terminal meningitis patients; within weeks, all 22 patients died." http://www.newsinferno.com/legal-news/eli-lilly-knew-of-thimerosal-dangers-for-decades/3298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.128.212 (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A couple of points: 1) That is not a reliable source 2) even if it were reliable, there have been plenty of studies about the safety of thiomersal since which have found it safe for use in vaccines and certainly no evidence in doses used it is a neurotoxin. Yobol (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As Yobol notes, the source is dubious. Even if it were not, I suspect that you (and the authors of the article) are missing the significance of what the report seems to be saying.  (I suspect that the article's authors are deliberately missing the point, in fact.)  If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the basic facts reported are correct, then the study involved terminal patients.  All of them would have died without intervention anyway.
 * What the study demonstrated was not that thiomersal is a deadly drug whose side effects were ruthlessly concealed (as the author of the article would have you believe). What was shown was that thiomersal was ineffective for the treatment of meningitis&mdash;just like every other drug available to pre-antibiotics 1930 medicine.  The purpose of such a study wouldn't have been to test the safety of thiomersal, it would have been to test novel interventions to treat otherwise-lethal cases of meningitis.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The test was not to see if mercury can cure terminal meningitis, the test was to bring the drug to market. Please do some reading on Eli's testing.

Quote, " In its apparent eagerness to promote and market the product, in September, 1930, Eli Lilly secretly sponsored a "human toxicity" study on patients already known to be dying of meningococcal meningitis. Senior partner Andrew Waters stated that, "Lilly then cited this study repeatedly for decades as proof that thimerosal was of low toxicity and harmless to humans. They never revealed to the scientific community or the public the highly questionable nature of the original research." http://www.iaomt.org/testfoundation/thimelililly.htm#Waters%20&%20Kraus  --199.60.104.18 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet again, the source is not reliable, so it doesn't belong until you find one that is. Secondly, even if it were true (which I do not concede), I don't know why it belongs in an encyclopedia article about the substance. Unless secondary reliable sources note the importance of this, it appears this is just being used to smear the product and Eli Lilly rather than trying to add neutral, verifiable information to the article. Yobol (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, I have copied this discussion to the article talk page, which is a more appropriate place for this discussion. If you have a further response, please respond there. Yobol (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dengue fever article needs to be a little more balanced. No mention of "alternative medicine" is made.
Hey, I'm new at this and you seem to be a pro. Please see my talk page for hjc906. But how come no mention of alternative medicine is mentioned under this article? I know most other articles try to include this subheading to try to be balanced. But this article does not even mention it, not even to talk bad about it. The herbs micle or Jacobina Spiciegera and boneset or Eupatorium have some therapuetical value, but are never mentioned. Is there any good reason why this section is not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjc906 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Hjc906 (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Notification
Your name has been mentioned in conjunction with Sockpuppet investigations/Ratel. —Novangelis (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Water intoxication, hyponatremia, body water, etc
Please see Talk:Water intoxication for a collaboration suggestion. Last Lost (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Wow! Awesome job at Ben Stein. You not only cited it but made it sound like a neutral description. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.16.198 (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS??
I've been doing Wiki for awhile, but I have to admit I have no idea why you reverted my recent insertion on the Fluoridation page and then flagged it with the comment need review per MEDRS. I thought the research was pretty straight-forward with obvious-to-read data. I didn't attach any opinion and simply stated a direct statistic off the report. What am I missing? Thanks for the help! - Ckruschke (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Per WP:MEDRS, we should be using review articles for making health claims; too often, primary studies are given undue weight in our medical articles, and even more so that you chose only one particular statistic out of that particular primary study to mention. Statistics about the rates of fluorosis is already cited in the safety section to a review article, so any discussion about it needs to be added there, cited to a medical review. Yobol (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a proponent for or against. Considering the only report shown in the section that I made an insertion is Australian (good or bad), I thought that a CDC study and a generic comment on one data point was not something that needed to be peer reviewed. Seems to me that the sentence would be perfectly fine if it was rewritten to say something like "a recent CDC study claims" or something like that, but what do I know. Also after reading WP:MEDRS, it says that medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies are ideal sources and I'm pretty sure the CDC fits this description. Also the data point I cited is not about Safety, it's about evidence of dental fluorosis. Not arguing or trying to belabor this, but I guess I'm missing your point. Ckruschke (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * That isn't a position statement by the CDC, it is a study (primary study) sponsored by the CDC. If you had read the safety section you would know that dental fluorosis is discussed more extensively in the Safety section, and any further discussion belongs there, not in the lead of the evidence section.  Your choice of particular statistic, out of all the ones available, including those in the summary of the article is frankly perplexing. Any further discussion of this should be made on the article talk page, rather than here.  If you wish to continue, you can copy this thread there so that others can contribute to the discussion. Yobol (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'm good. I'm obviously too uninformed to add anything to this page, even in good faith, and am wasting both of our times. I just thought it was interesting that they state that 41% of all 12-15 yr olds show sign off fluorsis. That seemed to jump out at my simple mind even with the +/- 10% error - nothing any more sinister than that. At least I can say I perplexed someone - that's how us engineers like to leave people! Take care - Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sugar
I have reverted the MEDRS claim you used to delete a section of the Sugar page. I believe I understand where your claim came from and have inserted human-based reports of the generalised opinion of this area, with effective medical citations. What I have more difficulty understanding is why you immediately moved to delete a section without a single comment in the talk page, and around a citation that has references clearly showing the human-based position. The text made mention of the links to the issue. The animal-based study was chosen as representative since it attempts to make the best link to the subject page, rather than cross-referring through diabetes mellitus. I have therefore carefully selected the other references to put in as additional citations based on human studies, since I assume this was your objection (there was no issue with the source itself) but without any other notes, it isn't clear. Please leave discussions about more precise reasons that MEDRS leaving those who are adding content, rather than just deleting it, to understand your vague objections. If your objection is not that it is an animal-based study, please make this clear through the discussion page first, or flag it appropriately, so we can adjust it appropriately. You may also want to check the references of the citation to ensure you have properly checked to see if the citation is based solely on an animal study, or, as this study stated, was attempting to deepen the understanding of an accepted dietary issue related to Alzheimer's disease that its references studied using human-based data, which is acceptable usage under Wikipedia's rules. You must also understand that if I have misunderstood, then you should supply improved reasoning on the discussion page to help understand this. If your MEDRS claim is supported, then I agree it can be deleted, but deletion without discussion seems a little draconian, and isn't necessarily helping develop the page. I am sure you will take these comments in the positive, constructive way they are intended. Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment, I have multiple issues with the sources and the content, but do not have the time to go into detail about it now. I will likely make some more changes in the future, and will be sure to make additional comments on the talk page to fully clarify the reasoning of those changes when I get a chance. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

TB & ACHARYA
I would like to see an article (a very early one at that) referencing the "chemical composition" of the TB cell wall, as opposed to articles refencing just its "unusual structure." Also, The Journal of Bacteriology is high quality...and I see numerous articles on Wiki pages dating long before 3-5 years. Let try to come to an agreement and sorry for sounding rude earlier. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaghuVAcharya (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not discuss article specific material on my talk page. If you have suggestions, please make it to the article talk page so that everyone can respond. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh
Do you have any ideas about the best way forward here? I guess I'm OK with just reverting and pointing to policy. There's an obvious POV problem but I suspect that's blended with comprehension or competency issues too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not sure what to do. Either one editor is hopping IPs to avoid 3RR or there is certainly WP:MEAT going on. Already tried to get it semi-protected, which was denied, but if the IPs still act up, we can certainly try again. I think we're dealing with competency and advocacy here. Yobol (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pheazepam
Materials are in Russian an in Russian version of article said about this therapy. I do not have money to translate the whole articles. Is scientific research, performed by professors of the well-known univercity is not enough? As it was, for example with Naloxone. Phenazepam therapy author is the same as author of naloxone therapy - Yuri Nuller. The source article is on official site of Saint Petersburg State Medical Academy - http://psychiatry.spsma.spb.ru/lib/nuller/depersonalization.htm This therapy quite help me, for example. I am new to wikipedia. You wish to remove to - I did it. But, you deserve a hope for many people, who suffering from depersonalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extraintuition (talk • contribs) 09:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Plantar fasciitis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acoustic (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) 11:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Optometry
Hey Yobol, the physician term applies to optometrists and it is in the source, search optometry there. Also, treatment of glaucoma is medical therapy so I don't know why you took that out. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shnurek (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "definition" is not a general definition by Medicare for all purposes, but for the limited purposes of that section. Nothing I saw suggests it is defined broadly by Medicare all optometrists as physicians, which is what the sentence implies (and certainly the extra commentary about it being a "unique situation" in the United States is just commentary, and not in the source). Yobol (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Proper lead for article
Please see the MMR controversy talk page for further discussion - let's get this ironed out. Thanks. EduZenith (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Siegel MD
Why did you revert this? Dr. Bernie Siegel is a Medical Doctor. He holds an MD from Cornell University. Nothing has been done that changes this. Every listing Google comes up with calls him Dr. Bernie Siegel or Bernie Siegel MD. Please reconsider this move. Rosencomet (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Already replied to you on article talk page. Please keep article specific discussion there. Yobol (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

IP
Any idea what the IP is on about?  Acroterion   (talk)   02:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * User:KBlott has been wikistalking my and MastCell's edits. He/She believes that I work for MastCell at the NIH (why? - I have no clue), and has evidently been using proxies to revert my edits. Thanks for the assistance with halting this latest episode. Yobol (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I eventually figured that out: thanks for looking after the articles, and if nothing else, a number of proxies are blocked and several admins have been following up.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem bent on undoing my editing of shiatsu for some personal reason of yours. You don't seem to have given any reasons for it either. I have used EXACTLY the same article (http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/shiatsu) that is given in wikipedia as a source. I just felt that choosing just the part of the article that you personally like, without mentioning the rest, was not impartial at all. Since you are obviously more articulate than me, just add something that reflects "Some people with cancer use shiatsu to help control symptoms and side effects such as poor appetite, sleep problems, pain, and low mood. They say that it helps them to cope better with their cancer and its treatment. After a shiatsu treatment a lot of people say they feel very relaxed and have higher energy levels." Since I don't think you are going todoit I need mediation - formal if possible - between you and me. I believe you are biased and opinionated Shiatsushi (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thanks! Yobol (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Asperger's syndrome
I fixed the reference; thanks for the heads up San s culottes 03:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously, check the ref:

"A disorder of uncertain nosological validity, characterized by the same type of qualitative abnormalities of reciprocal social interaction that typify autism, together with a restricted, stereotyped, repetitive repertoire of interests and activities. It differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development. This disorder is often associated with marked clumsiness. There is a strong tendency for the abnormalities to persist into adolescence and adult life. Psychotic episodes occasionally occur in early adult life. —"

San s culottes 03:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, when you sign in next, I'd appreciate if you acknowledge the messages here and the cause of the confusion on the Asperger's Syndrome page. My reverts have caused User:SandyGeorgia to have a fit of hysterics over me being a troll/sock-puppet/terrorist/whatever. San s culottes 10:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Saturated Fat
I will not wait for consensus, as the Wikipedia guidelines have been followed completely and fully. I fear that waiting for consensus will let editors give in to bias, rather than looking at this objectively. Objectively, there is a huge controversy regarding saturated fat; look at the table in that section I edit, and you will notice quite a few studies (including the big daddy of all the studies) showed no correlation between saturated fat and heart disease. Please review the sources. It is not a fringe theory if there is valid scientific support. Shicoco (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
Why are you putting message about edit war in Eczema article on my personal page, but not Doc James ? He is the one who first started to revert my edits. If you want to look fair, then at least put such notice for both of us. And why is the PubMed is not reliable? It said on Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine): "PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer reviewed medical sources". I will take it to Arbitration/Requests if you keep removing well-sourced information. Innab (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Quackwatch
You reverted my link to QW's Cheers and jeers section on the grounds that it was a random collection etc. Instead of starting a reversion war, could you please discuss the matter here so that we can achieve some sort of understanding? I posted those two lines as an indication of what was available, without evaluation. It followed a reference to a far more biased source. JonRichfield (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied on the article talk page, where discussion of article content belongs. Yobol (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
DBaK (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Many thanks. Getting these responses from clueful editors whose contributions I respect helps balance out the frustration from the POV pushers. Yobol (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The presentation of fringe ideas in our encyclopedia
Even fringe ideas have a right to a fair and intelligent presentation in our encyclopedia. This means that we don't refute them sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph, because that approach is not encyclopedic. It is enough for an encyclopedia to state at the end of the presentation, or perhaps even in the lead of the article, that the ideas, beliefs or concepts are contrary to, or outside of, the current scientific consensus on the subject. A concept by concept refutation is not an encyclopedic approach (and in some cases that I've seen, it's just a POV-pushing attempt to enforce the current scientific consensus, of course having the good intention of not allowing our poor readers to be lead astray). The reason it's not appropriate to refute fringe ideas point by point in our articles is this—it would be like going to hear someone speak, in a public place, about ideas you didn't agree with, and, instead of letting him make his presentation and state his case, you insisted on challenging him at the end of every sentence, or worse, shouting him down, without allowing him to present his case in the best way he was able to. Another analogy would be a jury trial, where, at the end, the defense and the prosecution take turns summarizing their cases—without interruptions from the other side. --  Kenatipo   speak! 02:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please address article specific material on the talk page of the article, where I have already posted. Yobol (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Autism external link - not an appropriate EL
(cur | prev) 08:50, 25 May 2012‎ Yobol(talk | contribs)‎. . (116,285 bytes) (-153)‎. . (Undid revision 494239081 by Tyhan (talk)not an appropriate EL) (undo)

Hi there! Have you reviewed the content before saying it's "not appropriate"? Why does learning what Autism looks like through an autistic child's eyes through a video "not appropriate"? Thanks for sharing your thoughts. --Tyhan 01:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyhan (talk • contribs)
 * Per our guideline on external links, specifically #8, which states we should avoid "Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content"; that site requires Flash to view. Also, the facebook link is also not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Thanks for clarifying. Understand the concern. But unfortunately the site was created with Flash as its intended design was to allow users to take different perspective of what an autistic person is seeing from different angles (up/down/left/right sides). If you have seen it you'll know what I am refering to.
 * Agree with you on the fb link which can be removed. As for the first link, the guideline recommends "should generally avoid" (not 'must avoid') which means exceptions can be made. Especially for this case, the intended message and level of impact cannot be achieved through the use of words alone. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyhan (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen the site (your original link was actually spelled wrong), and think it is an interesting website. However, we have guidelines for a reason, and I don't think because I think it is interesting that we should ignore the guidelines we have. What I would suggest is taking this up on the talk page of the Autism article to see what others think. Yobol (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea! Let's hear from the rest. cheers (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyhan (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea! Let's hear from the rest. cheers (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyhan (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Alkaline diet
Thanks for replacing all that gooble-dee-gook talk page history at Talk Page:Alkaline Diet. I didn't realize this was not supposed to be done as I have seen it done in so many other pages. I tried to clean out complaints that have become redundant as the material no longer exists in the article, or the discussion was not article related. Is it possible to background older posts on an archive page? The length detracts from clarity of current issues. The article page has become completely revamped and looks fairly encyclopedic now except for being a little short and lacking information for readers looking for possibly food groups or supplements that fit the description. Yeah, I am a believer in the diet but, even the promoters cannot completely agree on how or what makes it work. LOL. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Added archiving to talk page. Yobol (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your work on the Alkaline Diet article is great. I see you made an effort to explain the details of the diet, and differentiate the medical aspects from the marketing aspects. I read the article and I don't see the bias that I saw in the past. I still think a bit more information about the major published books on the diet will help, but certainly what is there now is a real step in the right direction. I posted this comment below to another user to clarify some points, that may or may not matter to you. Again, good effort to fix the article. Maximus. IPMaximus (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My point about the diet was that when I was shown website articles that were supposed to claim that the diet claims to alter blood pH, they did not say that. When I pointed this out I was told I was using semantics. So while it is nice that you repeatedly claim there are articles which say the diet claims to altes blood pH, I have not seen one. I also don't claim to be an expert. I do understand though that Wikipedia gives weight to independently published books ahead of self published websites, and I have read some of these books. While the misrepresentation of the diet by those who have not read those books continues, the article remains biased by ignoring the major primary sources. IPMaximus (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, would you like to help out with adding to Post-concussion syndrome?
I’m writing to invite you to help me make the Post-concussion syndrome article more accurate and comprehensive. We can start with “Four current problems with our article (May 2012),” or any place else you’d care to start. In my judgment, the article needs some real help. As I stated on the discussion page, I have pretty much decided to request that this article no longer be listed as a good article, although I am willing to wait a couple of days. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding personal attacks against Jakew
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

dispute
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 "X-ray computed tomography". Thank you. --79.179.224.214 (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Your revert
I do not understand your reason for revert on the circumcision article. Could you please explain? Thanks! Crimsoncorvid (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Will reply on talk page, where article specific discussion belongs. Yobol (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of edits
This user may need a review of their edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.46.198.232 if you have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. Any particular concerns? Yobol (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unreffed and I see you had issues of copyright in the past. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert on changes in Starchild Article
Hi Yobol, you said that the site from the owner of the Starchild_skull is not a reliable source, why is that? why it's different from others sites? They have new DNA tests and facts the need to be put in the Wikipedia article, is there any agenda here? I'm new to wikipedia, sorry for the lack of technical understand of this, will wait for your reply subkelvin —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please direct article specific questions to the talk page of the article. I will start a new thread there. Yobol (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

7-Keto
Hi Yobol,

I received your message re: conflict of interest and I'm totally on board. I'm motivated to produce a neutral, comprehensive article and I welcome assistance. To that end, while I'm not 100% convinced that WebMD's default language is a strong source, I won't contest it. If there's anything else you want to discuss, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thank you again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcouture (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Writer (talk) 19:04, 21 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 "X-ray_computed_tomography". Thank you. --Nenpog (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Reiki
Hi there, My apologies about the revert on the Reiki article. It was incorrect, and most certainly should not have been made. It was late and I probably shouldn't have been editing anyways, but I completely misread the context of your edit. Again, I apologize and I will make every effort to minimize such mistakes occuring again. Regards, MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 14:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Computed Tomography
Not quite sure why you undid my addition about the two books by F. Natterer. I cannot really see anyone disagreeing that these are the two standards on this topic and should be mentioned. Does this give you any comfort: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=500773 ? Check also the German pages in Wikipedia on Inverse Problems ("Inverses Problem") that also mentions the first book. Also check Amazon on it. And if you do not think this book is worth mentioning, I would then challenge the relevance of the anecdote on the Beatles (someone claims that someone claims ....). Also what about the whole paragraph starting with "Since the first CT scanner, CT technology has vastly improved. Improvements in speed ...."? What is the relevance of this paragraph? CT would not where it is today without mathematics and the mentioned books are the standard works on this topic. Let me know. Thank you. jaeljojo (talk) 20:18, 06 July 2012 (UTC)

Anaesthetist has a lower intelligence when compared to Orthopaedic Surgeons
This is found from a multicenter study published from a highly regarded journal (British Medical Journal) in Dec 2011. Please respect the evidence even if you may disagree with the findings.

For your information: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7506 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.17.7.181 (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Anesthesia
I don't understand why you think my edit on anesthesia providers is inappropriate. If having a section about CRNA's is appropriate then having a section about OMFS is also appropriate. OMFS provide every level of anesthesia and are highly trained in anesthesia. So why wouldn't they be included in this article? They are clearly providers and should be included in the subject context.

DMD453 (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)DMD453DMD453 (talk)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Thank you, coming from such a great contributor this means a lot. Yobol (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Aspertame controversy
Hi Yobol,

please check out my talk page addition to the aspertame controversy. I am fully supportive of providing balanced information backed by good science. My concern is that the info available on wikipedia about aspertame masks the fact that there is actually ongoing scientific investigation in this area. The info we provide should be transparent about this, and not leave the reader with the sense that all the negative claims about aspertame are nutbar factor 6 activist propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy#Aspertame_and_Weight_gain.

Leannet3 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)leannet3
 * Already replied there. Please keep article specific questions and comments on the article talk page, where it belongs. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My reason for coming here was not to discuss aspertame per se. I was curious whether you provided any info about yourself. I confess, my initial assumption was that you worked for the chemical industry. I felt your enforcement of the rules was being done in such a way as to mask the existence of valid scientific uncertainty. Please don't misunderstand me. I fully support the guideline about individual research studies - I have posted inappropriately before and you were absolutely correct to make the changes you did. I also applaude your efforts to fight pseudoscience. However, I believe we also need to find a way to report the simple existence of an ongoing scientific debate. Specific issues may have either a low or high degree of uniformity and agreement within the scientific community. It seems to me that giving readers a sense of this is also important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannet3 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer to finding the most neutral way to present a subject is to find high quality secondary sources, such as the ones already cited. If there is a controversy, it will be cited in the reviews.  Cherry picking one or two sentences out of a review in order to undermine the conclusion of a review does not appear to me be a neutral way to describe the debate or to build an encyclopedia article. Please direct further specifics about the article to the talk page of the article. Yobol (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
You may be interested in this: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For your consideration
Yobol, I'm certain that you do infinitely more good on wikipedia than bad. However, I have to say that my personal experience of your editing approach and our discussion of the past few days has been extremely discouraging. I wish you had treated me as someone to encourage and mentor, rather than as an adversary to shut down at all costs. I believe that you have portrayed elements of WP:MEDRS and other WP policies as more strict than they actually are and in contradiction to the spirit in which they are intended (see WP:LAWYER). You have falsely accused me of cherry-picking and making erroneous conclusions, used bullying language, and despite our reaching some points of consensus on the talk page, you have made all edits yourself. I hope that is not how quality wikipedia editing is supposed to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannet3 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear in that I have no intention of "bullying" anyone, I only want to make sure the high quality of Wikipedia's articles are maintained. Certainly Wikipedia needs good editors and I hope we can collaborate on more articles together as you gain more experience. Unfortunately, I have to be frank in that I see too much poor reading of sources, poor understanding of policy and guidelines, and what appears to be a persistent attempt at pushing an agenda; however, I am hopeful that this is only a mistaken impression on my part based on a limited interaction on one article. If you have a problem with the way I have addressed the dispute, you are welcome to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process or to go the relevant talk pages or WP:Noticeboards of the guidelines and policies you believe I am mistaken about to ask specific questions. I have neither the time nor the patience to mentor new editors, though places such as the WP:TEAHOUSE exists to answer questions of new editors. I look forward to seeing your contributions to the sugar substitute article. Happy editing. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have learned quite a bit about WP policies in the past few days and for that I value our exchanges. If I may leave you with a quote that hints at my agenda, it is that "risk information vacuums are likely to blame for the social amplification of risks." I'm paraphrasing Doug Powell and William Leiss. Cheers. Leannet3 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Induced birth harms you deleted
Instead of deleting all re induced birth from the lead could you please just provide the reference links. It's relevant to the lead because 20% of births are recently induced. You can use the news articles to find references (including the 20% incidence which should be added) them quickly. I don't have access to journals. Here's the short sentence you deleted:

Induced birth before 39 weeks is associated with increased chances of health and developmental problems, and learning difficulties. 32cllou (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are working links to the news articles: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/birth-37-38-weeks-linked-lower-math-reading/story?id=16683067#.T_lQWfVLFh7

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2167986/At-37-weeks-baby-called-premature.html 32cllou (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Circumcision
Hi Yobol, I am contacting you because you are a member of WP:MEDICINE who has contributed to the article Circumcision in the past. There is an active discussion right now at. An editor has suggested adding a new image of the procedure to the article Circumcision, and there is a discussion about whether this is the best image to use in the article. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! 13:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Yobol (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

RFAR request rejected
Per this, the RFAR request that you were listed as a party in was rejected and closed. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 12:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist
Hi Yobol, I'm probably going to be away from editing for a few days. If you don't already have it watchlisted, could I ask you to watchlist "our favorite article"? ...groan... Always something happening there, and given the never-ending parade of SPAs, POV-pushers and IPs/socks that are always there, it requires constant babysitting...  Thanks. 15:37, 19 July 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 "Water fluoridation". Thank you. -- Gold   Standard  22:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Link Deletion
Re: Link Deletion I disagree with your assessment that I am spamming the site. The articles I contributed are information only, not promotional. The last link was on Discovery Health. There is no link at all to any sites I operate. I saw a link in the same section I just added to, dental cavities that was written by an individual. That was fine? I do think you made a mistake Yobol and are way too aggressive. The articles I write are on hundreds of different sites, so I thought Wiki would appreciate them. Unfortunately one person with out any oversight can ruin a good thing. It's really too bad. Dr. Gordon Drjerrygordon (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Will respond on your talk page. Yobol (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

{subst:WQA-notice}
87.114.156.18 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

consensus
so if somebody agrees with me and it is 2 v 2 I can keep my edit --87.114.156.18 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, and take it to the talk page of the article. Yobol (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

MI
How confident are you about this one? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [[File:Heart normal short axis echo.svg]]
 * I'll chime in. I'm confident based on the relationship of the papillary muscles to the arteries.Novangelis (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I left a comment on the MI talk page, but the above image (by the same illustrator, no less) pretty much says it all. Yobol (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:57, 24 August 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 a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Luigi di Bella". Thank you! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for alerting me. Replied there. Yobol (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

West Nile: Kidney failyure study
You are corect that it need to be sourced. I attempted to do so, but I messed up. I have now fixe this.

I intend to place this into the article, not just the lede, but this is actually fairly critical informaion from a very reputable source, so I think is also belongs in the lede.

I in particular relied on information in this article, and I determined from it that it is OK to swim in my pool at dusk upon coming home from work. based on this one very reputable study, I should not have done so. -Arch dude (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * New section started in article talk page, where a discussion of article specific material belongs. Yobol (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work to keep Wikipedia honest in the medical arena. We currently have a minor disagreement at West Nile, but I completely understand you concerns and your goals. I fully support them. -Arch dude (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience in this regard. I understand you want to add the best information to the article, and can respect that as well. Editing medical articles can be somewhat confusing at first if you don't have experience with the specific guidelines used in this part of the encyclopedia, and hopefully we can come to a good resolution to this with help from some editors experienced in editing this field. Happy editing. Yobol (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Abstinence vs. abstinence-only education
If I am reading right, abstinence education doesn't reduce teen pregnancies in general. Per, , and , "abstinence-only until marriage" education actually makes teen pregnancy much worse because it specificially excludes contraception education. Is that your understanding? I should mention that abstinence education redirects to abstinence-only sex education, but given the above I think it would be more accurate to remove the "-only" from birth control. Is that okay? I want to mention that I don't have a very strong opinion about this, and think it is more than satisfactory the way you have it. It just seems like there ought to be some better way to put it. Cupco (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, your way is better. I was over-thinking it. Please disregard the above and forgive me for wasting your time. I still want to say something about how abstinence-only makes things worse, but I see the specific article already does that. ("Kohler further found that teen pregnancy rates were higher in students who had undertaken abstinence only education, when compared to comprehensive sex education") Cupco (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, probably better to be over-communicative, rather than less in a collaborative project. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

For your attention
Hi Yobol, could you please look at this thread I posted to Doc James' page? I'd really appreciate your input. Thanks... 12:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
is this article MEDRS? http://thepaleodiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Cordain-US-Dermatology-Reviews.pdf RobRedactor (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not appear to be. It appears to be an editorial published in a non MEDLINE indexed journal. Yobol (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * this is published in a medline indexed journal. Can I use it? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16092796#  This second article I don't know if it is published in a medline journal.  Can I use it?  http://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=479093 RobRedactor (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be better asked on the talk page of the relevant article. The reliability of a source is not only dependent on the characteristics of the source, but on what text you are trying to add, please start a thread on the talk page of the article if you want to ask specific questions about the article. Yobol (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, can you please tell me whats wrong with these sources?

"The Rodale Institute has announced the latest results of the Farming Systems Trial, America's longest running side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming practices. After 30 years of a rigorous side-by-side comparison, the Rodale Institute confidently concludes that organic methods are improving the quality of our food, the health of our soils and water, and the conditions of our nation's rural areas. "

"THE biggest study into organic food has found that it is more nutritious than ordinary produce and may help to lengthen people's lives.

A four-year European Union-funded project has found that organic produce has as much as 40 per cent more antioxidants than ordinary produce. The study found that the far superior nutritional value of organic fruits and vegetables can lower the risk of cancer and heart disease, and help people live longer lives. " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither are peer-reviewed secondary sources published in the medical literature, which is what WP:MEDRS suggests as a good source for medical claims. If you have further questions, please direct them to the article talk page, where article specific questions belong.Yobol (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
02:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Seconded! Not sure how you've managed to avoid burning out, but glad you haven't. MastCell Talk 21:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thirded.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm kind of surprised I haven't burned out yet, either, frankly. I honestly think that great editors like you all that are working to make this place better that keeps me around. Yobol (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping in...
...at Talk:Circ, it's very much appreciated. Also, for a good laugh and/or cry, check out my update to the Sugarcube thread on Doc's talk page here. 03:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy to add my two cents. I think it's been clear that editor had one goal here, and that wasn't improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure if it's "had" or "has," I'm not convinced he has given up. If he starts up again, wouldn't it be justified for the townsfolk to gather up the torches and pitchforks and head over to ANI?  I'm happy with WP:MED updating work I'm doing but nobody likes to have to spend a lot of time doing unnecessary cleanup...    03:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If they start up again, that's certainly a possible route to take. Unfortunately, editing and watching over controversial articles is a massive time sink here (I have a number of alt med articles on my watchlist). I wish there was another way... Yobol (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is another way, that's what I'm saying. WP does indeed provide a way to deal with chronic POV-pushers who consistently disimprove articles by editing against guideline and policy... as Jimbo said, "AGF isn't a suicide pact."  We're volunteers and our time is limited.  To help you free up your time, I'm putting Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thiomersal controversy and Ultrasound on my Watchlist (unless you tell me you'd rather I not).    13:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My experience with civil POV pushers is that they have to reach a minimum threshold of disruption over a long course before the community will act; only after wasting numerous hours of multiple editors have I seen them sanctioned, and I've always found it odd that we as a community don't take a hard line on them. Nevertheless, I'm always hopeful things will improve.  Having clueful editors watching pages is always helpful.  Yobol (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem... So we're in agreement that community sanctions are possible and useful to protect the articles and editors' time, but maybe we're not in agreement with the subjective evaluation of how much disruption is enough before moving to action. For my particular problem area, I think I've seen enough, and I think I've seen action at ANI for less.  But, I need support, so I guess I'll either wait to see if the problem goes away, or the problem comes back and continues long enough that others are convinced as well.  Just another day at the WP office...   19:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder
Just a reminder (re [thimerosal controversy]):

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Seipjere (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Journal quality, is it "PUBMED indexed"?
Hi Yobol, I've seen you shoot down some sources from journals you have described as "not PUBMED indexed" or "not MEDLINE indexed." How can I tell if a particular journal is so indexed? I'm on PUBMED all the time but I don't see an obvious way to determine it. And, it's possible that something is on PUBMED but it's not the best quality, how do you determine if something on PUBMED really is WP:MEDRS quality? Tx... 16:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Finding out whether a journal is MEDLINE-indexed is a lot harder than it should be. There are some instructions here to get a list of all MEDLINE-indexed journals; you can search within that list for a specific journal. It's not very inuitive; if you're having trouble navigating it, just let me know or mention it at WT:MED. MastCell Talk 18:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you, Masked Talk Page Stalker! Yuck that is annoying!    18:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Would like your input...
at Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision. Self-explanatory! Thanks... 17:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Deed is done already... who needs your input anyway? :)    17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreak? Hope you're back soon
Hey Yobol, just saying Hello and hoping things are well with you. 13:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope all is well too. Biosthmors (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. It would be nice to see your little red username popping up again on my watchlist. The place feels safer with you around. If you're bored with editing, perhaps you'd like to get involved at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Your clue and integrity would be an asset there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words and questions. I have been away due to multiple real life issues, but expect to get back to the grind in a month or so. I hope you all are doing well. I hope the Wikimedia Medicine project goes well, though I prefer to spend what limited time I have on Wiki in improving articles; my patience for administrative tasks are exhausted elsewhere. Yobol (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you. I'm doing well, thanks. Understood! Biosthmors (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What he said. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts on toxicology studies
Hi Yobol

I have been working a lot on the set of articles around genetically modified food and as I am sure you know there is some controversy about the risks of eating GM food. These articles were in a very bad state, having been bombed by anti-GM people adding all kinds of POV negative stuff and my work has mostly been trying to bring facts to the table and bringing the articles in line with the 5 pillars. One thing I have been thinking about a lot, is how to deal with toxicology studies which are one of the bases for assessing risk. I've looked at your edits to medical articles so I wanted to put this question to you. With respect to tox studies.... do you think that the the policies around MEDRS should apply to describing toxicology? If so this would be a way to focus on what is really mainstream science on GM food, and keep out original research studies that purport to show that GM food is dangerous, that have been widely cited by the anti-GM crowd, and widely discredited by regulatory authorities and mainstream scientists..... That is question 1. Question 2 is this: At least for now, I have concentrated discussion of controversy in the Genetically modified food controversies article. In your mind, is it appropriate for wikipedia to address these original research studies there, or should they not be discussed at all as they are not review articles? Thanks for your thoughts, should you choose to answer. I will look for your response here. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have noticed that the GMO articles have been in pretty bad shape, and I commend your recent work in improving them. I think any discussion of toxicology qualifies under falls under WP:MEDRS. My experience with re-writing controversial articles is to be very strict with the sources, and only use high quality review articles.  If there are "important" primary research that have been extensively discussed by reviews, they may deserve mention as well, but I would focus almost exclusively on secondary sources.  We also have to be very careful with how we weight secondary sources as well; clearly governmental agencies deserve high weight, while advocacy groups like Greenpeace might deserve mention in a "Culture" section but their opinion should not carry any weight as far as the scientific/medical content.  Hope this helps. Yobol (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you that is very helpful!  Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

MMR controversy
Hi, made 3 edits to MMR page so will leave it till tomorrow but would respectfully request you use the talk page before then so we can try and achieve consensus. If fraud is an issue which needs to be emphasised in the lead, I would suggest you re-write the sentence without reference to the BMJ (except as a citation).

It's ironic that the article blames the media for uncritically accepting an article just because it's in a medical journal when we seem to be proposing the same behaviour. Regards 92.16.50.16 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take article specific material to the article talk page, where it belongs, and not here. I have already responded about this topic there. Yobol (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it thanks, you're quicker on the keyboard than me. Also had a look a BRD, thanks for recommendation, will try to restart the cycle tomorrow. IP is Nernst,(hence 3 edits) logged out and couldn't be bothered to log back in 92.16.50.16 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you should not "restart the cycle" tomorrow (you don't get to be "bold" again just because it is a day later). Now that there is a discussion on the the talk page, you need to wait for consensus before re-introducing that edit. While the bright line of over 3 edits a day is a blockable offense, continuing to restore edits against objections can also get you blocked. Yobol (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Help design a medical journal evaluation tool
Hi Yobol, your input here would be especially valuable to me. Cheers... 13:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Therapeutic Touch
Regarding the October 22, 2012 removal of "Researching therapeutic touch in 1996, the James Randi Educational Foundation and the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking (commonly referred to as PhACT) sent invitations to more than 60 nursing organizations and individuals, including Krieger, offering $742,000 to any practitioner who could prove their ability to detect "biofields." Only one practitioner responded, and the results were not statistically significant. PhACT acknowledged that one test on one practitioner is not grounds to dismiss the entire theory of therapeutic touch.[15]"

What was significant about this test is not so much that one participant failed it but that there only was one participant at all. With that amount of money and Nursing's reputation at stake, more would have been expected especially in Philadelphia with its East Coast proximity to so many potential practitioners. Also Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine was not a holistic but a journal that was critical of pseudoscience and affiliated with the Skeptical Inquirer. Bobglickman (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

:)
That is a worry. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully just a temporary break...Yobol (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 01:00, 27 November 2012 --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a good sign. Hopefully back soon...Yobol (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to: Please remember that this user right:
 * Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
 * Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
 * Administrate article feedback.
 * Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
 * Does not grant you any special status above other editors.
 * You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yobol (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of refereence
You recently removed a reference about the effect of low concentrations of chlorine dioxide on rats. The conclusions mirrored OSHA's PEL for human exposure. The reason for removing it was that "we don't user primary animal studies, per WP:MEDRS". WP:MEDRS does not prohibit primary sources...it only states a preference for review articles. The reference you removed was very recent, appeared in a peer-reviewed, reputable journal (it is the official journal of the European Society for Environmental and Occupational Medicine) and is available in its entirety online. All of these attributes are considered desirable by WP:MEDRS. I would like a fuller explanation for your deletion of this reference. I do not have any personal interest in the reference, but I do not like seeing useful information deleted from Wikipedia.Silverchemist (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that something isn't prohibited does not mean that it therefore that material must automatically be left in the article. In this case, WP:MEDRS specifically cautions against recent primariy studies that have not been reviewed, and cautions against animal studies. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of articles published that discuss any particular topic.  Most do not belong in Wikipedia (else we would have bloated articles citing thousands of primary studies, making this a repository for studies, and not an encyclopedia). We rely on secondary sources to determine which results deserve mention here.  In this case, the addition of that material violates WP:WEIGHT as well - why are emphasizing that one primary study and leaving out all others?  Yobol (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff
This was excellent. Although I'm getting a bit concerned because now all that's happening is that our Talk page arguments are simply happening at DR. Isn't something different supposed to happen at DR?   03:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From my experience, not really. We're getting new eyes on the subject, but nothing that occurs there is binding.  As new editors join, they tend to form a consensus one way or another.  It's basically an RfC at another location, though the volunteers there tend to be clueful editors, rather than random people showing up at an RfC. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

EFT
I see in the history that others have put things in their own words and sited references and it was taken down. If a person who is knowledgeable on a subject is disqualified because they are a practitioner then how is a reference that offers no knowledge on the subject kept in? When I put the existing research into my own paraphrase and sight the references are you just going to delete it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.87 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to read through the archives of the talk page. Appropriate sources would be those that comply with our guideline on reliable sources for medical claims, and that are independent of promotion. Feinstein is a promoter of the subject, and not an independent source to discuss it. Independent sources that have since been provided do not support the use of EFT; if you find appropriate high quality sources, then we can certain discuss them coming in.  Note that we do not use individual primary studies, but secondary sources (such as reviews) that provide overview of the subject.  WP:FRINGE would also be a good place to start to learn about Wikipedia guidelines on how to discuss fringe topics. The sources you want to add do not appear to be appropriate, and should be removed if you tried to add them again. Yobol (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that a source should be unbiased but your "review" is nothing more than someone making negative assumptions about something they have no experience with, They are merely assuming it is a repacked relaxation technique and similar to a cold reading. Had this person actually learned what EFT was then they would not assumed that a cold reading had any similarity at all. But people who actually use the technique are not allowed to present studies that are double blind? This makes no sense. If a promoter is disqualified they why is a critic allowed when they present nothing to support their negative opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.105 (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Ok I just read the reliable sources text and it looks like your research doesn't qualify as the person is not an expert in the field and therefore not a reliable source even if the retired English teacher is published and a third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.105 (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to try to discuss such things on the talk page to get consensus, though I would say your reading of what counts as reliable and as independent is very far off of what Wikipedia considers reliable. Yobol (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I find your comment amazing in that you insist that an uneducated, inexperienced person who does no research at all is a reliable expert source. Are you in any way part of the medical profession? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.190.21 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Damn you.....
For beating me to reverting that huge edit to Aspartame controversy..... (well done) Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Argh me too! I wanted that revert!  In fact I had it done and committed but saw yours got in first, grrr!!    03:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I doubt that will be the last revert of that editor on that page... Yobol (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acne vulgaris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphism (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) 11:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Question re organic food article
Hi - I am talking to Banner on the Talk page. He is concerned that you and Wolfie would require MEDRS for statements describing chemical differences between organic food and conventional food - namely differences in nutrients, antinutrients, and pesticide residue levels. In my mind, the plain chemical description does not require MEDRS, just normal RS. What does require MEDRS, is content that makes claims about health based on those differences. I hope that you would agree with that. Would you please comment on the Talk page? There is so much bad feeling remaining that it is hard to move forward rationally. Thanks. (you can reply here) Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

explain revert
hello, could you kindly clarify your revert? The study which says that colloidal silver was found ineffective in vitro contradicts all other studies about cs which are already have been accepted on this page. It also mean that fda has cleared an ineffective product, that epa puts at risks patients in hospitals by allowing ineffective product to be used for disinfection. So its my humble opinion that according to wp policy such extraordinary study shall come from an extraordinary source. Ryanspir (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)ryanspir

nccam
can nccam over rule fda? Once enough studies were provided to the fda that it cleared cs as an official treatment for wounds, thus moved it from the segment of the alternative medicine into the traditional medicine. isn't it means that it made the statement which i removed absolute as of 2009? i must be missing something, kindly tell point me. Ryanspir (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)ryanspir

congressional testimony
In no much of connection with the revert, could you please let me know your personal opinion about the congressional testimony the link to which i have posted on the cs talk page? Thank you in advance. Ryanspir (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)ryanspir

Happy New Year!

 * Happy to see you back, and so soon, too. Hope you're having a wonderful new year. Yobol (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

reminder
kindly reply to my messages on your talk page. If you factually agree with me, please revert your revert.Ryanspir (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will reply on the article talk page, where article specific information belongs. Please note for future reference I have that article on my watchlist, and would prefer you not write multiple messages here. You can safely assume that I will see any discussion, and will reply there if I wish to. Yobol (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Medical Evidence
Reliable studies from numerous sources in reputable medical journals which contain information which could be useful to millions of women across the globe should be included on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor1112 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We have very specific guidelines on appropriate medical sourcing. At some point, I will attempt to rewrite that section, using appropriate seconary reviews, as opposed to using primary sources. Yobol (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Scientific misconduct
You deleted a scientist from the list and explained this was because he is just an economist, not a scientist. I don't know how you define science but please note the introduction of the article specifies that it is about "violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research". That is clearly what this person did and in a way that had a big impact on the way economists see their discipline. It also had an impact on other fields as it was an extreme case of self-plagiarism by a leading scholar in his field and who published in scientific journals of several fields, arguing he needed to publish the same research more than once in order to reach a wider audience. Zingophalitis (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will copy this message to the article talk page and respond there. Yobol (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Peace
i propose a peace and to interact based on a good faith. Do you accept?Ryanspir (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen 0 evidence Yobol has acted in bad faith. Biosthmors (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have always acted in good faith and assumed it during my interactions with you as well.Yobol (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

peace
so do we have a peace then? I'm also acting in a good faith.Ryanspir (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "peace", nor do I want to interact any further on this topic here. If I have something further to say I will say so on the article talk pages. Further attempts to discuss this article on this talk page will be removed. Yobol (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I have no problem interacting with you, nor do I want to discuss this further. I have therefore removed your most recent comments, and will continue to do so as I have said all I will say on the topic. Yobol (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Transfer Factor
I am not trying to start en edit war, but the page as presented is completely inaccurate. The "leads" discusses a lymphocyte-derived molecule but the uses and side effects has nothing to do with this. The "uses" and "side effects" as it stands it are for dietary supplements labeled as transfer factor. By sticking the two together you are giving the impression that they are the same. The leads should be treated as a lymphokine, the remaining needs to be a separate article. LCDR IAM (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Article specific discussion should occur on the article talk page, not here. While I agree that there is substantial room for improvement, your changes violates a number of our guidelines and from my standpoint made things worse. Let's start the discussion on the talk page about appropriate sources and how to use them. Yobol (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help on the talk page. LCDR IAM seems to have a much better appreciation of things now and seems to understand what is required to edit a good page. If you could keep an eye on the page, this time to see if s/he needs any help or corrections, I'd be much obliged.  If they're a genuine expert, it'd be nice if we could encourage their participation and hopefully retain them :)  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, I know how hard it is to deal with new editors one on one. I'll keep it on my watchlist, but my time on wiki is hit/miss lately. I hope they stick around, they seem to have a good attitude. Yobol (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to stick around. I read a lot, if I don't edit wikipedia it has nowhere to go :)  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All the better for Wikipedia that you stick around and improve the place. :) Yobol (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2013 (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 a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Emotional Freedom Techniques".

Thanks for filing it...
...I had left the EW warning for EFT specifically just because I thought that might be where it was going to end up. Hope you don't mind I edited the report to add the diffs for the two separate warnings left for the two articles affected. 04:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, thanks for that. I used an earlier warning to show that they had gotten the warning prior to his even starting this particular run. That they have continued this despite the warning shows how egregious their behavior has been. Yobol (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Yobol (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

regarding orthomolecular medicine - example:vitamin e
I feel that the following is relevant: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/2/9/929Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Re User:Ryanspir
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse and Orgasm articles
Good to see that you're still watching the Sexual intercourse article; a couple or few days ago, I was wondering if you were. Like I just told AndyTheGrump: At some point before Tdadamemd is unblocked, I'll be starting the discussion on the Sexual intercourse talk page regarding the addition that Tdadamemd wants added to the article. His suggestion that I start the discussion while he's blocked is reasonable. And suggesting that the discussion start while he's blocked, when three or more editors may have weighed in before he can, at least perhaps shows that he's not only concerned with his argument being expressed.

I also asked Andy if he wouldn't mind helping keeping an eye on the Orgasm article, and I told him that I would be asking you as well. Are you willing to? Recently, editors have been adding poor sources to it, with one (Reenem) having added original research to it back in December of last year. And I most recently reverted this opinionated edit, since the edit is not what the sources state. This is not a matter of "absolute rules," like the editor has stated, but rather anatomy (which is also clarified in the Vagina article). Considering that the topic of orgasm falls, among other things, under "medical," it would be great having you helping with the article since you deal with medical topics often. Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will add it to my watchlist, but I cannot guarantee that I will catch everything nor be able to participate extensively in any discussion there, as my time on Wikipedia is hit/miss recently and I have other articles I have been actively editing. Yobol (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. Like the Sexual intercourse article, it's not an article that has a usually active edit history. So there's usually not any drama going on there and not much for you to keep up with. Flyer22 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

hello ... it's 5-29-13 ... I don't know how to contact you any way other than edting here and hoping you see this ... I am just wondering if it is possible for you to repost the link to the audio file that was on the orgasm control page until about a month to 6 weeks ago. Or, at the very least, let me know how to find that particular page again thru a separate link. thanks in advance. .... pacraticus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacraticus (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Good morning Wikipedia friend.
Sorry. I wonder the message that you sent to me "undue weight to non MEDRS primary source; we need secondary review articles" for Alzheimer's disease Please clarify it. Thank you very much.Manzzzz(talk) 08:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sourcing for medical articles on Wikipedia must comply with our sourcing guidelines for medical claims, which says we should use secondary sources such as review articles, not primary studies such as the one you used. If you have further questions, I would rather you start a section on the talk page of the article rather than asking here, since article specific questions should be on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Vitamin C Megadoseage
Here is a high quality secondary source: http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.full — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats (talk • contribs) 11:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

thank you!
very kind of you!! I am glad you are finding my work generally acceptable - I think about meeting your standards while editing.Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy spring!
Glad to have you back. 15:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and happy spring to you, as well. Not sure how long I'll be back though... Yobol (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yobol already knows that I'm glad to see him back. But welcome back, Yobol. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! The only redlinked username I'm happy to see on my watchlist. :P MastCell Talk 16:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded! (or thirded or fourthed, or whatever) bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Joel D. Wallach for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joel D. Wallach is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Joel D. Wallach until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MastCell Talk 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Explanation of revert
Hello Yobol,

Would you mind explaining your revert of my edit? I do not understand it simply based on your edit summary.

Thanks,

Gold   Standard  03:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my edit summary was incomplete. What I meant to say is we don't inline attribute to the journal title like you proposed; first, attribution would be to the author if it was necessary, but is unnecessary for uncontentious material. Attribution, when unnecessary, makes it appear that only that source is making that claim and makes it appear like less the generally accepted principle that it should be presented as. Yobol (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't "highly misleading picture" clearly contentious material, given that it is being used to describe opposition? Also, could you please explain the two other changes I made that you reverted?   Gold   Standard  03:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am copying this thread to the article talk page where article specific material belongs. I will also reply there. Yobol (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Bill
Hi! What section you suggest that I add the update about the proposed bill to? -Anajean93 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest it be left out. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; if it becomes law, a sentence can be considered in a separate section, but as of right now I do not feel any mention is appropriate. Further queries/discussion should probably take place on the article talk page. Yobol (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright that makes sense, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anajean93 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Bruce Lipton
Hey, I'm working on finding a direct reference for the pseudoscience section. The basis for this section is factual and difficult to reference because the lecture series it refers to is only available in audio form at a cost of over 40 dollars. All I have thus far is the currently included pdf's link. Im not sure what is required, but I certainly do not wish to open wikipedia up to threats of litigation for libel. If you have advice on how I can make this part of the article I will apreciate it. I would consider making an entry that is instead called " criticisms" and link it to actual quotes in reviews of his literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.146.227.187 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You will need to wait for a reliable source to be published before you can add any criticisms. You can review WP:RS to review what a reliable source is, and WP:CITE to figure out how to cite the text in the article. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey
I could use a hand over at Causes of autism if you feel so inclined. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, will take a look. There does appear to be reviews on the subject, will see what they say and respond on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hrm, further research shows that there appears to be mainly one author promoting this theory; will have to delve a little deeper to see how to place this particular theory in context. Yobol (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

organic milk
i noticed you read through this and cleaned it up. the compromise we worked out is holding up nicely, isn't it! Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears to be working out fine. Will be going over Organic food at some point in the future as well. Yobol (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Waldemar Olszewski
I appreciate the edition of my article, but I would prefer next time that you ask for specifics before changing my edits. All the publications you removed are very imported for the scientific profile. It doesn't look like cv! They are only main publications on lymphatic system. Not all of them. The person wrote more than 600 publications. That would be too much. Thank you for visiting my article. I appreciate your interest! Anna Karolina Heinrich (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. In general, we do not list long lists of publications like that, as it does not appear encyclopedic. It would be much more preferable if you discussed in the text important papers that have garnered significant interest in independent secondary sources. I have asked for experienced members of Wikipedia who regularly edit biographical articles to take a look at your article as well. Yobol (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Cancer biomarker
Yobol. Thanks for reaching out! I'm planning on making extensive changes to the Cancer Biomarkers page in the hours to come... General question:

With paragraphs like the one on my intro, Is it better for me to cite it like this

While numerous challenges exist in translating biomarker research into the clinical space; a number of gene and protein based biomarkers have already been approved for use in patient care; including, AFP (Liver Cancer), BCR-ABL (Chronic Myeloid Leukemia), BRCA1 / BRCA2 (Breast/Ovarian Cancer), BRAF V600E (Melanoma/Colorectal Cancer), CA-125 (Ovarian Cancer), CA19.9 (Pancreatic Cancer), CEA (Colorectal Cancer), EGFR (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer), HER-2 (Breast Cancer), KIT (Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor), PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen), S100 (Melanoma), and many others. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

Or this?

While numerous challenges exist in translating biomarker research into the clinical space; a number of gene and protein based biomarkers have already been approved for use in patient care; including, AFP (Liver Cancer)[2], BCR-ABL (Chronic Myeloid Leukemia)]3], BRCA1 / BRCA2 (Breast/Ovarian Cancer)[4], BRAF V600E (Melanoma/Colorectal Cancer)[5], CA-125 (Ovarian Cancer)[6], CA19.9 (Pancreatic Cancer)[7], CEA (Colorectal Cancer)[8], EGFR (Non-small Cell Lung Cancer)[9], HER-2 (Breast Cancer)[10], KIT (Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor)[11], PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen)[12], S100 (Melanoma)[13], and many others.

Hello
Yobol, in spite of supposed differences, I would like to express my gratitude to you. I love you.

Thank you for having been a part of my evolution.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

autism revert
Could you please explain why you don't consider my link that you reverted WP:RS so that I can attempt to "ref" it better? Thanks. Rogerdpack (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For biomedical information, we use secondary sources such as high quality reviews published in the peer-reviewed literature or high quality medical textbooks, per our guideline on reliable sourcing for medical claims. The Huffington Post article does not meet this criteria. We should be careful not to give undue weight to any one particular study or idea that has not received significant traction in the medical literature. I hope this explanation helps. Yobol (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll let this particular research bake for awhile then. Thanks! Rogerdpack (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pain Management contribution
Hi Yobol,

I appreciate your comment on the Wiki:MEDRS compliance of my contribution and have taken that into consideration when submitting my revised contribution.

However, I think that it would be helpful if you left a more detailed comment on what exactly you feel lacks compliance in order to aid others in the future. Your short quip was insufficient in communicating to me what exactly was wrong with my prior revision, despite the fact that I realized that there could be some improvements made. The fact is that such a lengthy contribution took me a while to put together and I very much doubt that you put in the same amount of effort when deleting it. For you to state that it lacks MEDRS compliance requires you to take a very detailed look at all the sources I provided, which I find hard to imagine given the one line comment you left when undoing my contribution.

Anyways, I hope you take my words into consideration for future edits. There is indeed a general consensus that marijuana is an effective analgesic and there are a countless number of studies that will support this assertion. By removing my contribution, you are preventing general members of society from accessing such information. Please keep that in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.28.68 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding more compatible sources. I will try to update them with more recent ones as I find them. Yobol (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I insist on the deletion of that false Thimerosal toxicity paragraph
Yobol,

Because the paragraph in question is so grossly inaccurate and misleading it's deletion is a matter of great importance to the credibility of wikipedia. Accordingly, it's totally inappropriate for you (or anyone else) to delete a completely unresolved thread from such an important and controversial talk page.

There's no scientific defence for it's faulty assertions. (When 8 out of 10 shoddy "reviewers" make the same mistake, it doesn't cease to be a mistake.)

The paragraph must be deleted.

If you can't help to form a positive consensus, you should abstain from the discussion.

Respectfully, Seipjere (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The section was not deleted, it was archived. You gained no traction from multiple editors, and from the last responses, have clearly lost the patience of the editors there regarding that subject. You are here to right great wrongs, which is exactly not what Wikipedia is for. The thread was resolved, as you did not garner any support from anyone that your arguments had merit. The talk page is not a monument for you to argue about the topic of the article, but a place to discuss improvements for the article. When consensus is against your position, continual insistence that you are right is disruptive behavior and can be sanctioned as such.  Yobol (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Reiki edit revert
Hi Yobol, You undid revision 553461789 by Mmmcsilva (talk) with the explanation that "nursing journals should be used as sources only for what nurses do" and I'm somewhat confused. Can't nurses do Reiki? Thanks, Margarida Silva Mmmcsilva (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As it is unregulated, anyone, including non-medically trained laymen, can do Reiki. However, sources like journals should be used for where they have expertise in; medical interventions should be sourced to medical journals, not nursing journals. The vast, vast majority of nurses do not use Reiki; as such, a discussion of Reiki is outside the natural scope of the journal. Per WP:REDFLAG, extraordinary claims (such as Energy Medicine being possibly effective) need to be sourced well; this does not qualify. Yobol (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

EFT edit revert
Hi Yobol, You reverted my contribution on "Emotional Freedom Techniques" stating " authors are promoters of the technique; we need independent sources". Please point me to the test to determine whether authors are indeed promoters or simply practitioners or experts on the matter. Thanks, Margarida Silva Mmmcsilva (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick google search of the authors shows that they have different websites promoting and selling EFT service. In the case of WP:FRINGE ideas like EFT, we need to use independent sources to determine whether the method has any validity in relationship to mainstream medical/scientific consensus. If the only sources that say EFT have validity are people who make their living selling EFT, then we have a problem - we shouldn't state EFT has validity. Yobol (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Thanks for the clarification. What are the criteria for inclusion in the next section on EFT (Reception)? Is it solely science based? Or is op-ed ok? Regards, Margarida Mmmcsilva (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reception section has probably a less strict criteria for inclusion. For example, I think a discussion of how it has (or has not) been embraced in the alternative medicine community would be helpful, especially if sourced to independent secondary sources (in this case, news articles or opinion pieces published in high quality sources would probably be ok). Yobol (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The only thing worse than being talked about...
... is not being talked about, amirite? You may be aware that you were recently mentioned in a press release from a morgellons advocacy group (I haven't linked the press release here because it's silly and ill-informed, but if you haven't seen it I'll email you a link). Apparently your sins include being "an active editor on many Wikipedia medical topics" and being the subject of numerous Google-able complaints from other editors, which I suppose makes us brothers in crime. Also, your editing powers are so superhuman that you cannot possibly be one person; you must actually be "a very organized group of individuals" backed by "a sophisticated monitoring system with significant financial backing." Which sounds pretty bad-ass. MastCell Talk 18:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoa, they spent at least $99 on this? They're trying to buy a chilling effect...    18:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Protection of several things is probably in order very soon.... and this was interesting.   18:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * MastCell's right -- that does indeed sound badass. When I first saw this section pop up on my watchlist, I thought it was about how the new notification system let's us know when someone on Wikipedia mentions us (as long as the username is Wiki-linked). Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! Take a break from Wikipedia, only to find this upon returning... Do the donors to this charity know how they're spending their money? With the number of times I've been accused of being a paid shill (of some company/organization/industry, take your pick), boy, am I overdue for that first check. :) Yobol (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, I thought you worked with me for the international aspartame and MSG conspiracy, have you been moonlighting? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No way, being on the payroll of the Fiendish Fluoridators has better perks, awesome holiday parties (but the snacks are terrible because they're all sugar-free).  13:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pfft, it's way better to be a vaccine shill, that's where the big bucks are. I'm surprised it's been almost two years since someone's noticed my name is a (near) anagram of the word "lobby"... Boy, they almost got me that time! Yobol (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for wording
To Template:WPMED/Evidence? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia's medical articles typically follow WP:MEDRS when it comes to references. The links below are good places to start looking for references for medical information:" Yobol (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Coconut Oil
What's your problem? Are you disputing the definition of medium and long-chain fatty acids? THC Loadee 21:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by THC Loadee (talk • contribs)
 * See article talk page. Yobol (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing that edit at scopolamine. I missed the "anti" part the first time and was just going back to fix it and found that you just did. :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, had to think about it for a second or two with the "anti-" and "inhibitor" and making sure I wasn't misremembering how it worked... :) Yobol (talk) 00:41, 29 May 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 20:27, 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 :)


 * Sorry for the late replay; I already have good access to this source, so will leave it for someone else more needing to use. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Craniosacral therapy
I have restored, in a fashion, the information provided regarding the Craniosacral Therapy Association's position on the topic. If we are going to prominently highlight skeptics' voices, then we need to give proponents' voices equal weight. However, I have removed the soapbox nature of their language, and properly formatted their references to solidly assert that this paragraph represents only their opinion on the matter. Please evaluate, and feel free to disagree. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As a disclaimer, I have no association with Craniosacral Therapy, and feel the name way too easily implies "head up your a**" therapy. But I do believe in giving equal voice.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of problems with the changes, but will reply on the talk page if/when I get a chance. Yobol (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons
Hi, Yobol. I just wanted to let you know about the Morgellons dispute resolution case, in case you were interested. You weren't included in the list of involved users, I guess because you haven't edited the article recently, but since you have been involved in the past, I thought you might be interested. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I've been keeping a peripheral eye on that article, but figured the recent press release would cause my presence to be mostly a distraction, especially with the large number of good editors already expressing what I would say anyways. I'll keep an eye on the DRN discussion and add my two cents if I feel it would be helpful. Thanks again. Yobol (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted on CST
I have reverted this edit you made to Craniosacral therapy. You removed cited material because the citations did not specifically mention CST. However, as the citations referred to the whole of alternative therapies, and the assessment of such therapies and their therapeutic value, they need not specifically address CST.

As there has been controversy and dispute regarding the balance of this article, I would recommend any changes that change the balance of the article should be discussed on the talk page before implementing. Let's try to build some consensus here. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Luigi di Bella". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! CarrieVS (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Not collaborating with charities
Yes you are because it is many of their staff, partners and patients that make updates to Wikipedia for the benefit of the whole community. Your individual choice to take a view that in your opinion such pertinent information is not important to the visitors of the page nor relevant to the topic as a whole is one made of ignorance. If you were making a good faith change you would have created a new page for (perhaps) Lymphoma Support Organisations and moved the content there rather than just throwing it away. I find it ironic that someone who believes they are representing a charitable organisation like Wikipedia would take a negative stance against charities. Perhaps these days you have become to busy trying to make changes that you are now failing to fully evaluate the value of those changes. Just some friendly advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.252.144 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted on Aspirin
I just noticed that you reverted my edit...a year ago (I don't sign in much). Prostaglandins do not meet the criteria to be classified as hormones. Prostaglandins are simply locally acting messenger molecules, but not hormones, so by stating "better before" to reverting my edit doesn't give much reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educated (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN
Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Circumcision
You realize that by putting "what your wife finds sexually appealing" into the description you've guaranteed that every person who reads up to that point will click "show" and thus negated the entire effort of hiding it, right?&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Yobol (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nicotine addiction
Please explain why you're claiming the edits I made were OR.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Yobol. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Section Blanking Reason NPOV.The discussion is about the topic Cholangiocarcinoma. Thank you.24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

 * Maple_syrup.jpg ...and some syrup to go with, from me, for the same reasons.  14:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Making me hungry...Yobol (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits
In turn: This reversion of my edit to Naturopathy| Note that the Naturopathy article is already currently categorised as a pseudoscience. Given this existing categorisation I have returned pseduoscience to the introductory paragraph as it certainly fits the description on the Pseudoscience page and, as I noted, is already categorised as such by other editors.

This reversion of my edit to Anthroposophical medicine Everything above is the same for this article. Existing categorisation and fitting with the description. I have returned pseudoscience to the introductory section.

This reversion of my edit to Chiropractic The article already has the template and includes pseudoscience in the introductory paragraph already, adding Cat:Pseudoscience is in keeping with existing material on the article and so I have returned the category. Why did you not remove that template as well as revert my edit? I contend that Chiropidy fits the pseudoscience description as per the Wikipedia article and have returned the Category and description. If you maintain your problem with this description; why did you not remove the template also as well as the existing description in the introduction?

This reversion of my edit to Electromagnetic therapy I contend this therapy fits all requirements for Cat:Pseudoscience and a description as such. I have returned these to the article.

To prevent an edit war, I suggest the next step is to open this up to discussion at WikiProject_Medicine or individual RfCs per article.

-- Cooper <tt>42</tt> (Talk)(Contr) 23:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

GAPS diet editing
Yobol, this article has unfortunately been edited into a highly skeptical POV piece -- essentially a combination of ad-hominem attacks on the originator and claims of possible health hazards, without balance or generally useful information on the diet itself.

Please cease direct editing & deleting/reverting other's material, and work towards consensus on the Talk page. Thanks.Twhitmore.nz (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please join me for conversation
I think your last edit revisions of Electromagnetic therapy could use imporvement. Espeacially citations expalining the contradictrions or better maybe we should remove the contradictions. What do you think ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think the medical acceptence of Electromagnetic formed "tumor treatment fields" as put into practice by novocure is compatable with saying all electromagnetic therapy is useless quakery?

And if references older than 2003 are no longer valid then you should apply that evenly instead of subjectivly. All the refferences older than 2003 need to be pulled if aging is all that disqualifies them in their validity.

I'd appreciate it if we could agree on undoing your revisions in the Electromagnetic therapy unless of course you can provide a citation proving Novocure and their electromagnetic therapy modality of Tumor Treatment fieldsa is an illigtimet therapy. 1zeroate (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Mercury poisoning
What is the reason of reverted changes? Should I add anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozrev (talk • contribs) 13:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read and respond to talk page.
I have gone to the newbie boards and other lists to try and find the best approach to a reversal, and a repeat reversal you have done on a page. I have looked through your edits, and find that you seem to be adding a lot of value to Wikipedia by preventing fringe views from being advertised in Wikipedia. I have update by user page to be more transparent about myself. I would appreciate it if you would relook at the talk page for ILADS, and debate the issues that I have brought up. I believe that you may have had legitimate reason to believe that I was an editor acting in ways that would seem improper. I made the mistake of not logging in the first time, for example. I was hoping to use a low value page to hone my skills. I also appreciate guidance in general beyond just debating the facts. I am arguing (and could be wrong) that ILADS is a significant minority opinion, and that equal weight clause has specific guidance for pages about significant minority opinion that are more liberal than general pages on the subject. Look forward to learning from you, and also look forward debating well where we disagree.

Bob the goodwin (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have folded. The consensus clearly was that ILADS was fringe. I think the science is there, and they have some meaningfully notable followers. I never was a great fan of ILADS, I was more in distaste of the wars. The CDC is now saying that 300,000 people contract Lyme per year, and 10% get treated. Some of the rest will live horrible lives. The arrogance is stunning all around. But this is neither Wikipedia's, nor my problem. And I do appreciate the work you do. I looked around at your edits and was always 100% behind you. My skills were not up to the task.

Thanks, and keep the bastards in line.

Bob Bob the goodwin (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Quotes from articles
First, Yobol, I wish to thank you for your diligent efforts to maintain high standards. These topics are often controversial, but 99% of the time I fully agree with your edits. However.. (you knew there was a but coming, didn't you?), in November you undid one of my edits because you said that I "cherry picked" a quote from a journal article that contradicted the conclusion. However, I read the entire article, not just the abstract summary, and in my opinion the other quote was the one that was "cherry picked". Rather than erase the misleading quote, I added another quote from the conclusion of the article that more fairly represented the overall views of the investigators. With both quotes, I felt there was a much more balanced representation of the conclusion of the article. I just wanted to explain. Thanks CJ (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice and kind words, I have responded on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Happy New Year to my favorite editor whose username is almost an anagram of "lobby"... :) MastCell Talk 16:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to both of you, and best wishes for a happy, healthy New Year to you and yours. I often wonder how that sockpuppet cracked my uber-secret disguise of my true intentions... Yobol (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, the truth is so crazy that only crazy people can see it. MastCell Talk 00:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing no one bought his rantings, otherwise my cover would be blown. Now I'm free to continue my shilling for the Vaccine/Pharmaceutical/Medical/Agricultural industries in peace... Yobol (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Cigarette
Hello Yobol, was there any reason in particular for the removal of the referenced content I added to the article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.227.251 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no source, and it contradicted the sources present (specifically the WHO). Further questions should go to the talk page of the article. Yobol (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Lyme Disease article
Greetings, Yobol. Your follow up to my excision of 7 January did, indeed, move the excerpt to a correct place. The excerpt is an opinion about the emotional and legal climate around the disease. In its former location is was a great example of the tactic, "guilt by association," an intellectually dishonest "technique" with no place in Wikipedia. Given that it's an opinion--not something that advances understanding of Lyme disease--and its pernicious use, I felt no need to relocate it. Regards, Tapered (talk) 07:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omega-3 fatty acid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (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) 09:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
I assume good intentions on your part, so please assume good intentions on my part. I have had lots of edits undone, and have never seen a comment put in the talk page, and this is why I did not. My objections to a set of quotes was simply because it was redundant to put scare quotes after "controversial". There is also a lot of RSMED with the term in it. Plus there was already an open conversation. I am happy to discuss, as I see from your other edit history you are putting effort into getting things right, which is also true of me.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, I see your point. I'm fine with how things stand currently. Yobol (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you ever wanted to reach out on my page, I have politely folded, and find myself aligned with you in every other field. You might be both surprised and interested in a perspective of someone who thinks there is an anti-science war going on.  I think we both think we are fighting on the side of science.  I would like to share.  I am not interested in litigating what is an obvious WP consensus, and I respect that consensus.Bob the goodwin (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer, but my time on Wikipedia is limited by multiple constraints, and I prefer to spend my limited time directly editing and improving articles as much as possible (though the discussion you've been having with Jytdog appears quite interesting). Happy editing! Yobol (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I respect that. If you happened to have any evidence that ILADS is bad science, I am have been writing outside of Wikipedia on the bad actions of the Lyme patient advocates, but I keep running into claims of pseudo-science within ILADS that I cannot square.  Most accusations are either guilt by association, or are circular (we said X, you did Y, so you are wrong).  I have completed cross referencing most accusations.  Not your job, but if you have any, it would be appreciated.Bob the goodwin (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

COLD-FX edits
again, i wonder how biased editors really are especially when things are quoted directly from the cited secondary review.

Original: There is some evidence to support that Cold-fX is effective in treating the common cold. but the difficulty in assessing COLD-FX efficacy has been mainly attributed to inconsistent data reporting between the various trials. The majority of clinical trials have been funded by the manufacturer in multi-center research hospitals and post-secondary institutions in Canada and USA. Currently, COLD-FX is approved by the Health Canada's Natural Health Product Directorate to "help reduce the frequency, severity and duration of cold and flu symptoms by boosting the immune system".

These are direct quotes from the secondary review sources. Please take the time and ACTUALLY READ the article

Original: Medical Reviews There is some evidence to support Cold-fX is effective in treating those infected with the common cold. The effect of preventative use is not clear as rate of clinically-confirmed acute respiratory infections did not differ between ginseng and placebo groups.

In the meta-analysis review conduct by Seida et al., 2011, the scientists used data from 4 out of the 5 published COLD-FX trials, in addition to a non- COLD-FX clinical trial, to evaluate the effectiveness of North American ginseng in the prevention of common colds. The researchers find "there was a trend toward a lower risk of developing at least one common cold in the ginseng group compared to the placebo group across the five trials..." and "there is some evidence consistent across two trials that the duration of colds and other ARIs is decreased by an average of 6 days for individuals taking the ginseng extract COLD-FX."

Again, these are direct quotes from the secondary review sources. Please take the time and ACTUALLY READ the article

The title was changed to: Medical uses

and content to:

There is no evidence that Cold-fX is effective in those infected with the common cold. The effect of preventative use is not clear. When used preventatively it makes no difference on the rate of infections. It also appears to have no effect on how bad the infections are. There is tentative evidence that it may lesson the length of sickness when used preventatively.

This is a section on the effectiveness of treatment, not on its intended use. The title itself is inappropriate.

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adrenal insufficiency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AVP (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) 09:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal from The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential
Hi Yobol, I noticed that you removed my entry from the page of The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential. In my view, the commentary from Sydney Gellis deserves due weight. He was a key member of the AAP and instrumental in the warnings that were issued about The Institutes so a clarification by him is important material to include. He simply pointed out that The Institute's inability to participate in a controlled study is something that should be considered and such a study should be encouraged. I made this entry in response to some of the comments that have been made on the institutes talk page which allege that the page does not conform to neutral point of view and only negative opinions are allowed to be included. This comment will address that and ensure that we are not seen as suppressing an alternate point of view, especially a well cited view that comes from a prominent member of the AAP. Sydney Gellis does not give a view on whether the institute's methods are correct or not so this not change the overall criticism for the institutes. Please take another look and see if you will reconsider before I put the entry up for discussion on The Institutes talk page.

Thanks. MojoMan100 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was one notice by one person about their critique over 30 years ago, which is not even covered in our article. It does not deserve any WP:WEIGHT in our article. Any further discussion belongs on the article talk page. 12:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alkaline diet
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alkaline diet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- 15:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
I strongly suggest you check this promptly.
 * Thank you for the notification, though I see my reply to it is very late. Will make some comments on talk page. Yobol (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alkaline diet
The article Alkaline diet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alkaline diet for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- 16:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yobol (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Chronic stress
If you revert me again on that article,it will be a 3RR violation. The item is sourced by a reputable source. Please either take it up on the talk page or change the wording if you want to, but please don't revert me again. --evrik (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Follow WP:BRD and don't edit war, adding fringe material that is undue weight. Adrenal fatigue is not a real medical condition, and saying stress can cause it is ridiculous. Yobol (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You reverted me before I could finish typing. I'll allow you to change it back and won't consider it 3RR. --evrik (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page, rather than edit warring. I have no intention of reverting further. I suggest discussing on talk page, and I will add a notice to the relevant noticeboard (WP:FTN). Yobol (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you now extended your edit warring to Adrenal fatigue, I'm adding a 3RR notice about that page. --evrik (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You realize you are subject to 3RR too, right? Yobol (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User Page
Why would your user page have been deleted 3 times, and at your request?Hardkhora (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because I requested it be deleted, when others created one for me. Yobol (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That didn't answer my question, but I'll take that as you don't want to asnwer.Hardkhora (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardkhora, he answered the question you asked. If you want to know why he says nothing about himself on his userpage, then you should ask that question. He will of course have no obligation to answer you. But he did answer the question that you actually asked. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you figure? I asked: "Why would your user page have been deleted 3 times, and at your request?" That might seem like an answer but since I already provided that information it isn't really answering the point of my question is it? My question is asking why whould he request that. If he doesn't want to answer I don't mind, and I fully expected an answer along the lines of: "don't want to talk about it."Hardkhora (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I added new information (others created the user page). I don't see the need/purpose for having a user page, and so have not bothered to create one and don't really want one. Yobol (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, you never started one in the first place. I miss interpreted that, thanks. I can see your point about the need for one. In a lot of ways the user page and the talk page could just be one thing with what ever people want at the top and the conversations at the bottom.Hardkhora (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

advocacy group
Hello Yobol. Do you happen to know the origins of the AAP? The AAP is an "advocacy" group that formed in opposition to the American Medical Association's lack of focus on what was "best for children." The AAP originated with only 35 people. You can verify this here. I fail to see how that differs much from the way ACPeds originated. Thus if you want to refer to ACPeds as an advocacy group on Wiki, you should also refer to the AAP as the same. Both organizations advocate for children. Both organizations are formed by members with the same credentialing. One is more socially conservative than the other. So why do you insist on making a negative, sarcastic slant to the Wiki post for ACPeds? Why can you not just simply post the facts without the slant? I'm not asking for you to write what is not true. I am asking for you to remove the bias.

Sallysue1159 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I missed it, but where in that link does it say the AAP was formed in opposition to the AMA? I can't find the words "lack of focus" or "best for children" in the link. Yobol (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The American Academy of Pediatrics is the major national pediatric expert group in the US, with ~62,000 members, and it focuses on the entire spectrum of pediatric medicine and public health. The American College of Pediatrics is an obscure group with somewhere between 60 and 200 members (as best anyone can tell), and its activities seem limited to promoting partisan ideological talking points (that gay people make bad parents, that abortion is murder, that sex education is bad, etc). To pretend that these groups are comparable because they both contain pediatricians insults our intelligence. It is "biased" and non-neutral to pretend to a false equivalency here. MastCell Talk 18:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's remarkable how little pretense the ACP has as a real medical association; their "position statements" is little more than a laundry list of conservative talking points. Yobol (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you used the acronym "ACP", that brings up another interesting point. When I see "ACP", I think of the American College of Physicians&mdash;the major US association of internal medicine physicians, and among the most venerable and reputable medical organizations in the country. I'm not sure if the acronym overlap is intentional (in the hope that some of the ACP's prestige devolves onto ACPeds), but it reminded me of the National Association of Scholars, a similarly obscure ideological advocacy group whose acronym happens to overlap with that of the prestigious US National Academies of Science. MastCell Talk 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure that was completely coincidental. *cough*. Speaking of acronyms, I have to laugh at the person who finalized the decision about the title of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.  Some forward thinking people in that group... Yobol (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The second choice was probably Journal of International Non-Governmental Organizations Interested in the Study of Medicine. But brevity won out. MastCell Talk 23:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please understand that I appreciate the work and statements of the AAP on most issues - those that are strictly medical and don't involve social positions. But when it comes to the social issues of medicine, the AAP is biased and advocating for that which is politically correct above and beyond what would truly be considered "best for children." After all, how can abortion be considered "best for children?" How can it best for children to ignore decades of science that show children fare best when raised by their biological mother and father and instead advocate for the rights of non-heterosexual unions to adopt children? How can it be best for children to not promote delayed sexual debut (abstinence)? Is there any health benefit to an adolescent engaging in sexual activity? Pediatricians have an obligation to advocate for that which is most beneficial to a child in all aspects of their health: physical, mental and emotional. ACPeds does not need or intend to address positions involving issues that are purely medical. The AAP is already doing a fine job with that. It's their (AAP) positions on the social issues that fall short. Furthermore, who creates those positions? Does the full membership vote on them? I doubt it.Sallysue1159 (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "How can abortion be considered "best for children?"" I can think of plenty of reasons, the same way some would argue death is better than a life time of torture, but I don't think this conversation is headed in the right direction if only going in the direction of opinion.Hardkhora (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The AAP releases position statements mainly about medicine. The ACPeds releases statements mainly about social conservative talking points, with only a fraction even related to medicine. To pretend that these are similar groups is an untenable position. Yobol (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sallysue, you're proceeding under the erroneous belief that abstinence-only sex education is effective in achieving its stated goals. In reality, the objective evidence suggests that abstinence-only education is ineffective in preventing STDs (Cochrane 2009) and that it does not "result in a delay in the initiation of sexual activity, a reduction in the frequency of unprotected vaginal sex, or a reduction in the number of sexual partners" (Fineberg 2008). In contrast, comprehensive sex education (which includes education about safer sex and contraception) is more effective. In fact, it actually does achieve the goals you mentioned, by reducing the incidence of unprotected sex and the number of sexual partners while increasing condom use and delaying initiation of sexual activity. If those are your goals (or ACPeds' goals), then it makes sense to support comprehensive, not abstinence-only, sex education. To do otherwise would be to ignore objective reality in favor of one's ideological beliefs. MastCell Talk 23:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst
Hi! I have noticed your edit at water memory where you claimed lack of consensus for reverting my proposed improvement of the article. I advise not to act on behalf of other editors older to the topic who might consider they own the article by multiple ownership and oppose reasonable edits they don't like. Your edit will be reverted.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, no idea what you are talking about as I never act on anyone's behalf. I have had that page on my watchlist for months now, and note that particular sentence has been the subject of extensive discussion and this is the consensus version of the appropriate wording based on the sources. Per WP:BRD, it is up to you to gather a consensus on the talk page from those very same editors to change it, rather than to try to ram your preferred version of the article through by edit warring.  When multiple editors in good standing disagree with you, I would suggest you assume good faith of those editors, rather than assume a conspiracy against you. Yobol (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Patrick McKeown
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources.
Yobol, I am unaware of any rule that states that secondary sources are absolutely required. Please show me the rule that states that this is true.Khimaris (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content.". You will need to find a good reason for an exception to this general rule, with "I don't like what the secondary sources say" not being a valid reason.  Yobol (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Generally" is not absolute. Please show me a rule stating that primary sources are absolutely required. My reason was already stated and consistently ignored. A Cochrane Review that states that there are no studies using Lipoic Acid for dementia sufferers is being used to state that Lipoic Acid is not efficacious. My issue is that there are now trials using Lipoic Acid for dementia sufferers . This isn't me saying "I don't like what the secondary sources say". This is me saying the information presented in the Conchrane Review is outdated. Please show me the rule that states that this is inappropriate.Khimaris (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Present secondary sources that talk about these supposed new trials. I should note that the Cochrane source says there are no randomized double blinded placebo controlled trials in dementia, which a quick search on pubmed would suggest is still true. Yobol (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey User:Khimaris, with respect to LA, today -- today - there is no evidence that LA is useful for dementia. Yes there are clinical trials going on, but we will not know one way or another for years what the outcomes will be.  And until we have such evidence, we cannot say it works, or even that it may work.  But you have a way out of this - WP:MEDMOS provides a section on significant ongoing research; that is a section separate from actual "medical use" sections.  If there are secondary sources describing clinical trials, content describing the trials (not claiming they will be successful, of course) can go there. Also, and I am sorry to say this - in my experience, people who blow off the "prime directive" (found in the policy WP:RS as well as WP:MEDRS) to rely on secondary sources, generally have an ax to grind, and will not say why they are deviating from the spirit and letter of RS/MEDRS. You were directly asked why, and you said "why not"?  red flag answer, my friend... You need a legitimate "why".  Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User:AlexbrnUser:YobolUser:Jytdog I filled a Dispute. It turns out Sayre's law is real after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khimaris (talk • contribs) 00:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * bizarre. you have not even begun to try to talk User:Khimaris Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jytdog I've tried to talk. Many many times. And it has always been unsuccessful. I've stated my point of view. What more do you want to understand. I'm not a woo peddler, nor some crystal crank. I'm also not in league with Mercola. I disagree with the way the information is being presented. I disagree with the arbitrary nature by which you all pick and choose what sources you want to use. I disagree with the arbitrary and socially constructed way in which you deliver the results for treatments. God forbid anyone actually mention the actual results in a numerical fashion as apposed to only being able to scream "NOT CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED" or "CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED". Statistical and clinical significance are social conventions that can be derived by many ways. It's absolutely maddening to pretend that this isn't true or that it shouldn't be added how it was derived. To make matters worse, that's not even a rule mentioned anywhere in the MEDRS or MEDMOS. Yet, somehow, the only possible answer is to agree with you all. Edits I make are often reverted and someone shouts "FOLLOW MEDRS" or "IT WAS BETTER BEFORE" without listing any guideline that has been violated. Lastly, this is something that you all seem to have forgotten. MEDRS is merely a guideline. It isn't some absolutist rulebook where any deviation must be silenced at all costs. It is simply the accumulation of biases held by previous members and enforced by current members. Now are you actually willing to address any of my concerns or are you just going to brow beat me until I lose patience and give up? Honestly, I'm pretty tired of this. That's why I filed a Dispute resolution.Khimaris (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

E-cigs
Fancy maybe discussing your edits instead of sticking your POV all over the place?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractors
Of course I immediately saw my mistake and before correcting it saw your revert. Thanks! פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes, happy editing! Yobol (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda and cancer
You are using the UK Cancer Research webpage to base your claims that Ayurveda is not effective. However, you are only referring to partial information, which puts things out of their original context. You obviously have a biased view and it is not scientifically justifiable to manipulate original primary sources to serve your personal interests. At the very least, you should mention the promising results with some of the herbs that were deemed effective in vitro and in some animal species. Nadturg (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we should not add that information, especially in the short summary there. Animal studies and in vitro studies are notoriously unreliable in how well they translate to human effects, so we should not place any emphasis on this. Yobol (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You haven't responded about the fact you are using only partial information from the UK Research webpage. They are at least opened to explore further the promising results from the cited research. International organizations (such as WHO) and several countries' public funding is dedicated to study herbal treatments especially as well as other alternative approaches. I would suggest you take a few minutes to read about ethics when it comes to those: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/8/07-042820/en/ Nadturg (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Studies != positive results. Yobol (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph added about controversy with regard to an article in the Medical Journal of Australia's MJA InSight
Yobol,

That paragraph was not spammed across those entries. It was only on relevant pages. If you would read the article, I think you'd see what I mean. The article addresses errors about the history of William Coley and Coley's Toxins, for example. It goes into 'notable' detail not found elsewhere, which is why I presume the Medical Journal of Australia's MJA InSight newsletter chose to divert from usual policy and publish an article by a lay author. Why should that not be included on the Coley's Toxins page and the Dr. William Coley page? It is an unusual, well-researched defense of Coley and Coley's Toxins.

The article is also extremely relevant to alternative cancer treatments, cancer immunotherapy, immunotherapy, and oncology. I would ask you to read the article and restore the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.236.170 (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reading the MJA Insight newsletter, I can't tell what editorial control is for this publication, it certainly does not meet WP:MEDRS standards. In fact, it appears to be nothing more than the equivalent of a Letter to the Editor.  Not significant, would not put any weight on it. Yobol (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

William Coley
MJA InSight is produced by the Medical Journal of Australia and has a medical editor, Dr. Ruth Armstong, and a journal editor. All sources in these articles, not letters to the editor in any shape or form, are vetted and edited by both the medical editor and the MJA InSight journal editor. The journal cited in my entry, from the article, in relation to the restoration of Dr. Coley's reputation, Cancer Research, is the most cited journal in cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellian (talk • contribs) 21:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Coley
My recent post on Alexbrn's talk page

Dr. Coley has been accused of all sorts of quackery, even by the Journal of the AMA, which later reversed itself, 4 decades after the fact and with the damage done to Dr. Coley's reputation. Would you please explain your "poorly sourced" in relation to the Medical Journal of Australia's respected MJA InSight. It is distributed to the largest database of health practitioners in Australia: https://www.mja.com.au/insight/about-us And also the journal Cancer Research, est. 1941, so that this edit can correct the record of Dr. Coley's achievements on the Wikipedia page devoted to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellian (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Organic food
Can you please expand on your comments regrading the removal of content from ‎Consumer safety: "this section discusses comparison of organic vs conventionally produced milk, not contaminated food formula". The para discussed the relative consumer safety perceptions in the chinese market between conventional and organic powdered milk - which stem from the 2008 scandal and are fueling the significant expansion of the organic market in china. I'm not sure of your reasons for removing. Sorry if this is the wrong format - i'm a relative newbie. thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaztastic (talk • contribs) 08:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The safety section discusses the safety of organic food. The safety issues of other specific types of food does not belong there. Yobol (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - further, the content was not about the safety of food (in other words, it doesn't describe scientific studies about whether the food is safe or not) but rather, was about the perception of the safety of organic food in China. When very similar content was added before, I moved it to the "public perception" section where it actually fits in this dif. User:Shaztastic are you editing here as User:Mcpheeandrew also?Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * hi Jytdog no i'm not
 * thanks very much for that explanation Yobol i understand now what i did wrong, much appreciated. it will help me in future, i've been editing much smaller bits until now   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.219.47 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

EFT
*applause*

That is all.

Guy (Help!) 17:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Somehow I doubt this will end the long-standing issues with that page. Yobol (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I am sure you are right. As with, making Wikipedia less neutral and reality-based is one of the most important projects for believers in every form of snake oil. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
 * Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with   with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
 * You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
 * We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
 * Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
 * Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
 * To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.
 * You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation!  D ip ta ns hu Talk 12:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Fluoride Therapy discussion
Hey, I added a talk section to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fluoride_therapy#Mechanism when you get a chance please discuss my latest edit and your undoing of it there. Thank you, Hardkhora (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope all is well, I added a response on May 2nd.Hardkhora (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "water fluoridation". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 06:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.151.40 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lotus birth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Umbilicus (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) 08:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

SPI
Hey, I've opened up an SPI for the accounts that edited in relation to Bioregulatory medicine. You can find the page at Sockpuppet investigations/Manastir65, if you want to comment on the editing behaviors. I think that some of the accounts are probably just a case of someone trying to WP:MEAT, but I was concerned enough to want to have them checked just in case. I wasn't one of the editors at the AfD, so I'd like to have someone who participated come in and comment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the same message I posted on another user's page, so I figure that I'll post it "as is". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Unmoored references
17:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The WP:MEDREV Barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, I like the logo. :) Yobol (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Naturopathy
I undid your removal of my citation need tag re vitalism. The first ref in the following sentence is nothing but a search page and I found no obvious hits for vitalism and naturopathy. The second ref says only that naturopathy is "often rooted in mysticism and a metaphysical belief in vitalism." That's not strong enough to support the statement that "Naturopathy is based on vitalism" (with no qualifications), and certainly not enough to justify starting the lead with it. The ref in question is The Skeptic's Dictionary and I doubt that qualifies a reliable source for the definitive explanation for what Naturopathy is based on. Meters (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the new ref. I'm not registered to access it, but given your edit interests I have no doubt that it is sufficient. Meters (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that Skeptic's dictionary is probably not the best source to use for info in Wikipedia's voice. Happy editing. Yobol (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Massage
Not all external links are "evil". I took the liberty of reverting your deletion of a couple links in the article Massage. They not only enhanced the article, but cited scholarly research and are thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ormr2014 (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither sites would come anywhere close to WP:MEDRS. EL sections are not sections to dump links that couldn't cut it as sources. If you have further suggestions, this should be on the talk page of the article, not here. Yobol (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, it is common practice here to add a notation on the Talk page of the editor, or contributor whose content you edited or reverted. It was a courtesy to you and nothing more. As to the validity of the links in question, I hardly think you are an authority to make a judgement as to their value. Though I was not the one who originally added them, I recognize the cited references as both scholarly in nature and in fact derived from actual scholarly journals. Spine Journal, Published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, July 15, 2009 - Volume 34 - Issue 16, Massage Therapy Research Roundup, conducted by the American Massage Therapy Association, and a scholarly document by the regulatory body in Quebec for massage therapists & naturotherapists. Please be advised that you have reverted this article twice already. A third time would constitute a violation of Wikipedia's Edit warring policy.Ormr2014 (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the light of day, the AQTN source in particular does not look as bad as when I first looked at it. I find myself unable to get worked up enough about these particular ELs (given the ambiguity of the guideline on ELs especially) to pursue this further. Happy editing! Yobol (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A2 milk and Nestle paper
Hi Yobol, I have raised the issue of the Nestle paper as a possible source at WTMED. Your input would be welcome. BlackCab (<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK ) 03:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Palliative care
Well some of the content is okay, it appears to be copy and pasted and I have not checked the refs to see if they support the text. Feel free to revert / fix the rest of it. If problems persist I will block the editor in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The refs do not seem to support the text, from those I've checked, so I've largely rewritten the content with sources I could find. The content itself seems reasonable enough, but we need good sources too. I was also thinking about copy-pasting, but didn't come up with any evidence of that. Yobol (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have documented a few cases of copy and pasting on the person's talk page. Have not fixed it yet. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed a couple. Plagiarism shouldn't be much of an issue now as I basically rewrote most of the sections they added. Yobol (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pancreatic cancer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatigue. 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) 09:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Heart failure
ref says "Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials that prospectively assessed loop diuretic efficacy on HF symptoms are scarce. " rather than no studies, also moved your signature from the article space :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On page 493, it says "As mentioned, the efficacy of loop diuretics on morbidity and mortality in HF has not been prospectively evaluated in placebo-controlled randomized trials." I see now that was specific for loop diuretics and not diuretics in general, which makes your correction still valid. Thanks about the sig, what a rookie mistake, not sure how that happened. :) Yobol (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Dental amalgam toxicity page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624163453 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F624163453%7CDental amalgam toxicity%5D%5D Ask for help])

Time for him to speak for himself
I think it's time for him to speak for himself, instead of having others help by guiding him to the answer before he has a chance to demonstrate for himself his understanding of sourcing and content policies. He's been pointed to the appropriate WP:PAGs hundreds of times by now, further links won't help. Personally I'm interested in seeing exactly what it is he actually has to offer. 18:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly nothing except being a time sink for other editors. WP:SHUN suddenly seems like a good idea. Yobol (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda
Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=630557332 your edit] to Cansema 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * blockquote|A 37-year-old housewife had a skin condition that later (at Duke) proved not to be a

Electronic Cigarette RFC
Since you have edited the article reciently you may want to comment on the current request for comment on the talk page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Link
Hi,

Why have you deleted the link to a valuable calf stretch article? This is not spam. Please, check the link to see for yourself. This is well written and completely free article on how to stretch the calves which is valuable to readers and directly related to rehab for a sprained ankle.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicsofmotion (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The link is to a commercial website selling a product and appears to be WP:SPAM to me. Please find a more appropriate reliable source for such material. Yobol (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a whole range of completely free and reliable source material on the website that is not related to any kind of purchase, including this article to how to do a calf stretch, which is not covered in the sprained ankle page as of now and is valuable to readers. Please take a look at the article and then let me know as it is clearly not spam.

http://hemanklerehab.com/calf-stretch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicsofmotion (talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to find another source that does not sell products on their website and meets our guideline on reliable sources go ahead. I do not think this website is appropriate. Yobol (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, Yobol. That is a spamlink. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that <S>you you all self-revert
I don't really want to count reverts on Electronic cigarettes, but i'm rather certain that you by now are above WP:3RR. May i remind you that WP:3RR is specific here (underlining mine):
 * "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part —counts as a revert."

So let me suggest that you revert, and stop ignoring input from other editors at Talk:Electronic cigarette. Your "i know best" attitude is not really constructive. Gaining consensus does not mean that you should keep inserting material that you know is controversial. --Kim D. Petersen 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All of my edits have taken into account objections raised on the talk page or edit summaries previously. This is known as "editing", not "reverting". For instance, your objections to the most recent changes were answered on the talk page, where two other editors felt my version was an improvement, and you did not object to this improvement when asked multiple times. It is certainly not "controversial" that the current version is the more accurate summary of the source. Yobol (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you think your edits are. What matters is that you have crossed the bright-line of WP:3RR, that is the problem with edit-warring, you end up making such.
 * First revert of this
 * And now those about the WHO report: Second revert, Third revert, Fourth revert. And considering that at no point a consensus was present on the talk page. That means that you've broken WP:3RR. So please self-revert. --Kim D. Petersen 21:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

i suggest you all step away from this article for a while. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, can't even self revert now. Welp, further discussion here is pointless. Yobol (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * :) Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Iceland123456789
don't add warnings for other people's reverts. ⁓ Hello  71  15:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to revert the same vandalism you were, but edit conflicted. Use of Twinkle/rollback (I don't know which one is specifically used here) automatically opens the talk page of the vandal, which I then templated, before I saw the edit conflict. Yobol (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of dispute resolution
{subst:drn-notice|Emotional Freedom_Techniques} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Emotional_Freedom_Techniques.2FArchives.2F2014.2FApril--Charlottechloe (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your massive deletes of reliable information about mercury in amalgam
Please respond at Talk:Dental amalgam controversy. Ajobin (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson knows DOESN'T know who you are
You're famous! Apparently she thinks you're some sort of "special interest". Have you seen this yet? Everymorning  talk to me  03:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind Everymorning that I changed the section title to something a little more accurate and less panic-inducing. I looked at that thread, Attkisson's tweet is over 2 years old, doesn't say she knows who he is and she last replied to it March 2013.  It's Holman of Morgellon's fame talking about the press release they did indeed end up paying to have published complaining about how they couldn't get their way on the Wikipedia article.  By my last check at the article it looks like they stopped trying.   03:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. What I meant was, "Sharyl Attkisson knows about your Wikipedia account," not "Sharyl Attkisson knows your real world identity." Sorry if there was any confusion about that. Everymorning   talk to me  13:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet how frightened you must be, knowing that someone with Attkisson's finely honed journalistic talent is pursuing you. I mean, yes, she was somehow too credulous to see through Andrew Wakefield despite his obvious transparency... and she's kept busy with Benghazi conspiracy theories that even the House Republicans finally admitted were baseless and far-fetched... and she's got secret guv'mint agencies making her TV "spontaneously jitter, mute, and freeze-frame". But still. MastCell Talk 17:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's new to me (though 2 years old, apparently); have to say, though, that after you have a press release mention you, a tweet just isn't the same. It's a good reminder that I really need to start collecting all that "special interest" money I've been working so hard for over the years; these deadbeat pro-water fluoridation/anti-Weston Price groups still haven't paid me a single cent, even after all that time I spent working on those articles.  And don't even get me started on those pro-circumcision groups; it's like they don't even know that I'm in the same Big ConspiracyTM with them to turn Wikipedia into special interest Wonderland. Heck, none of my numerous Big ConspiracyTM backers have paid me yet - it's like I've been working as a volunteer editor this whole time.  But that can't be correct, no one in their right mind would do that, right? :D Yobol (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just what I would expect a special interest shill to say. (I'm still waiting on my cheques from the aspartame and MSG people).  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a Catch-22. Anyone sane enough to make good edits is also sane enough that they'd never set foot in this madhouse of pathological obsessives unless they were being paid to do so. That said, I think your current ploy for deflecting scrutiny&mdash;namely, refusing to archive your talkpage to the point that it takes 5 minutes of mouse-wheel work to scroll down here&mdash;is likely to prove effective. MastCell Talk 21:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You see through my laziness fiendish schemes all too well...(hehe, my TOC list appears to be longer than many other entire talk pages). I'll probably get around to archiving this when the POV pushers stop trying to skew Wikipedia medical pages. Yobol (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS
I reverted you edit. I really don't mean to piss you off, but I'm trying to narrow this language as much as I can to put an end to all the cherry-picking and minority viewpoints presented as equivalent or dominant relative to what is mainstream, which I believe WP:NPOV requires us to do. The current proposal did not go nearly as far as I would have liked, but it seemed that to get support it was necessary to give a nod to Cochrane, as a lot of people seemed to want this. But I felt that the extensive language you added about weighing all the sources to get a feeling for weight just took us back again to the issue of chemists writing review articles about thoracic surgery and becoming reliable sources thereby. I'm really hoping to get a consensus to define this more narrowly. Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied on WT:MEDRS. I have significant concerns about the sentence in question, but further discussion belongs on that talk page. Yobol (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to show a little respect by leaving a personal note. Philosphically I agree with you, but I think that by asking for more than there is broad support for, you may put the limited progress we made at risk. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thoughtfulness. I think we both agree in general about the issues at hand, but do not want to change MEDRS without thinking through any unintended consequences of our actions. Yobol (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for the updated version, it looks nice. Somehow I didn't see it before.  Formerly 98 (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

does MEDRS apply here or not?
Seems that's the core issue. Can you help? this edit says no [] discussion on Talk:Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes  Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your reverts at G. Edward Griffin
The article is poorly written, one-sided, full of BLP violations, NPOV, and undue weight. It is less about the man and more about criticisms toward him. You can choose to stop reverting my edits, and discuss the BLP, NPOV, and undue weight issues at the article's talk page in a polite manner, or I will take it straight to BLP-N. Your choice. Either way, I consult you to review WP:BLP, because I know what I've pointed out, the sources I've used which are highly reliable, and the information I've included to expand the article meets BLP requirements. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme &#9775; Consult  19:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your revert
The material in Cheng that was removed, that you reverted, is based on pure opinion. The Cheng "review" and I use that term very loosely states that it reviewed no studies on the subjects because none exist. link to archive section As pure opinion, it is not a secondary MEDRS on those subjects. What was reviewed, from newspapers, was left. AlbinoFerret 18:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Undoing the vandalism on the school violence entry
Thank you for quickly undoing the vandalism on the school violence entry. Iss246 (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Making Wikipedia better, one edit at a time; thanks for thanks! Yobol (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Infectious disease (medical specialty)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Infectious disease (medical specialty) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme &#9775; Consult  18:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see someone has removed this spurious speedy attempt. Yobol (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ratel unblocked
In all fairness: Indef block appeal for Ratel --<font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿? 06:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Screwed up edit needs fixing immediately
Your attempt here didn't work. Please fix it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. Yobol (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Allergies and Hispanics
Hi, Yobol. Currently the allergy article states Hispanic is an ethnic group, which clearly contradicts everything in the Hispanic article, the sources and even common sense. The reason the article has this mistake is that some medical studies show genetic correlation of Hispanics to certain types of asthma, but this was only possible because they usually test a somewhat homogeneous group of Hispanics (mestizos), with no regard to other groups, mainly because most Hispanics in USA are Mexican Mestizos and those researchs were done in USA. There is obviously no genetic reason to apply the same results to non mestizo Hispanic Groups, such as Black Hispanics and Asian Hispanics. Any statement alleging Hispanics are genetically more predisposed to anything is by definition incorrect, as it is not a genetic group, but a Linguistic one. It would be the same as saying English Speaking people are genetically predisposed to something, grouping together blacks, whites, aboriginals, Asians, etc, all over the English Speaking countries. I though my edition would be enough to address this issue, as I provided several sources for "Hispanic" being a cultural-linguistic term unrelated to race or ethnicity. As it was deleted, I would like your help on how to properly address this issue in the Allergy article. My only concern was to clarify that Hispanic is not an ethnic group and, as such, any genetic conclusion about Hispanics are either wrong or applied only to the specific Hispanic ethnicity addressed, in which case using the term "Hispanic" should be replaced by the specific colour, ethnic or racial group addressed (e.g: White Hispanics, Black Hispanics, Native/Amerindian Hispanics, Mestizos (Mixed European&Amerindian), instead of just "Hispanics"). Please contact me and help me to solve this issue. Thanks. 187.114.1.17 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Reiki
(I think you accidentally munged your last comment.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see what happened. I fixed your typo. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yobol (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Death panel
Per the sites NPOV policy, I agree that article should not support the point of view that Obamacare included a death panel. However, the opposite POV is still POV. The attributions I included were necessary. JoeM (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Your attribution suggest that only supporters of the law have that view; however, independent analysis has found that the concerns about death panel is false, so there is no need to in-text attribute. Yobol (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, this would be better discussed on the article talk page, not here. I suggest starting a discussion there if you want to further discuss this. Yobol (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I don't know how "independent" those studies really are. But let me try again. I'll word it in a way to suggest not only supporters of Obama care claim there is no death panel provision. 20:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeM (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, you "disagree." That's the problem: this comes down to your opinion.  You said, "it's not our job to determine what should be said by our own opinion, but determine what reliable independet sources say; in this case, it is discredited, per the reliable sources."  But you are, very precisely, determining what those "reliable sources" are by your opinion.  This is undeniable: you are allowing your political perspective to shape this, and then pretending that it is not your personal POV.
 * Here's the problem you are apparently not getting: the use of the word "death panel" was discredited in how Palin and some other people used it: they implied that the ACA would ration based on "level of productivity in society." But the fact is, there is some government-influenced, top-down, rationing resulting from the ACA -- as Gingrich is quoted in the article, ... the proposed legislation did not provide for government rationing of health care, but it was "all but certain to lead to rationing.", and to that is how many people use the term "death panel."  In fact, under the ACA, there are limits to how much you can spend on health insurance, which limits how much health care you can get through that insurance.  There is, further, government involvement in what treatments may be covered.  These things are true, and have been included as part of the definition of "death panel."
 * Nothing about this use of the term has been "debunked"; only particular uses of the term have been debunked. To call it "discredited" is your POV, and it's clearly an incorrect POV, based on what reliable independent sources say. Pudge (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to be arguing based on your own personal experience and opinions, rather than what reliable sources are stating. That would be a violation of one of our core principles and not helpful. I am not interested in discussing or arguing about "death panels" or the ACA, nor am I interested in discussing your personal opinions of what they entail. Please take this discussion to the talk page of the article in question and present reliable sources, not your own interpretation of what the WP:TRUTH is. Yobol (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.
SPACKlick (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Olive branch
Hey Yobol, I think we got off on the wrong foot. Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion and I'll stand up for anyone's right to express it; you, jytdog, and Alexbrn included. I also greatly respect one Editor coming to the defense of another if there is a perception of wrongdoing or false accusation, but that just wasn't the case.

I'm not sure if you were aware of the whole discussion which started on my Talk page, continued on the article talk page, and also on Jytdog's Talk page, but you seem to have misread the situation.

The dueling discussions on the article Talk page and jytdog's TP didn't help things. I didn't see your comment until I had left jyt's page. I freely admitted that I was out of my element on the EFT Talk page and explained what brought me there in the first place.

From what I initially observed, it looked like there was a "virtual lynch mob" trying to do everything possible to discredit the article's subject. Hence my acceptance of a Pending Change edits and my edits to try and achieve some kind of neutral wording. For the record, from what I read the subject looks like somebody's excuse to sell books rather than any kind of actual clinical based practice which makes it WP:FRINGE in my opinion. But after an edit or two I get a 3RR warning on my Talk page along with a crazed IP reverting everything and then a few other watchers joining in the fray, it would appear to me that good hard look needs to be taken at the article for its Notability to see if its worth keeping.

I was not aware of the discretionary sanctions in place about Pseudo Science until I commented on the Talk page and quite frankly I'm a little surprised that its used to protect an article where so many people are bashing the subject. So why not just AfD it and get it over with, there seems to be ample support. Heck, count me in.

My apologies for the misunderstanding and any perceived disruption, it was not intended. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think the best way to move forward is some recognition that your attitude and accusations were off the mark and that you should avoid doing so in the future. When coming into a situation or article with which you have no experience, it probably behooves you to do some research before jumping in and accusing other editors of wrong-doing.  You owe me no apologies; I do think, however, you do owe one to Jytdog for mis-characterizing their edits as "passive-aggressive POV editing" when they were in fact, appropriate and correct.  Yobol (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, I'm happy to do so. But for the record, from my perspective the majority of the problem is with the interpretation of my "attitude and accusations". I was just trying to plainly state the situation and encourage an action that I think everyone was working towards. In other words, "being bold". The use of the phrase "passive-aggressive POV editing" was not intended in anywhere near the malicious or even negative way that you seem to be interpreting it. And before you say anything like, "How can it be interpreted in any other way?", that's just my point. It didn't need to be interpreted that way. There was no benefit to anyone in doing that.


 * Jytdog started our interaction with a 3RR warning on my Talk page after I made two different edits. It probably would have been better to mention the Discretionary sanctions, I know I would have appreciated that. And had I done my research, I'd have know about them. But a Pending Change review brought me there and I misread the situation and who was involved, just like you did on Jyt's page. Like I said, I can respect one Editor defending another, but you basically charged in and started throwing around accusations of your own. You're entitled to see it differently, and I'll defend your right to do so, but AGF is a universal concept. It doesn't happen because I do it for Jyt or you do it for me, it just should happen. I'm off Jyt's page. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to be more interested in Tu quoque arguments and denying any impropriety on your part, and instead blaming myself and Jytdog for your inaccurate and inflammatory comments, I have nothing else to say to you. I am disappointed in your lack of insight, and hope you do better in the future. Cheers, Yobol (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tu quoque, interesting phrase, I was not aware of that, so thank you for that. As for the rest, my sentiments exactly, I'm glad we're in such agreement. We'll just agree to misunderstand each other... :) Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I refuse to agree to that! ;) Cheers, Yobol (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that was just funny! I'm thoroughly enheartened to see that you have a good sense of humor. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
You are hereby warned not to modify or remove my comments on the talk page. - A1candidate  21:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:TPO subsection Sectioning. You started a completely different topic in the middle of a known section, and I was just moving your topic so that others could read it better. If you prefer to make it more difficult for others to read the talk pages, then so be it. Yobol (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

HFCS
There's some more WP:SYNTH and WP:POV from the previously blocked user at High fructose corn syrup. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Lyme Disease Controversy Talk Page: This article has been mentioned on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard
Hi Yobol. This is the first time I am doing this, so hope im doing it right. Pls see the section titled "This article has been mentioned on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard" on the Lyme Disease Controversy Talk Page. You reverted an edit of mine. Wanted to discuss. That's the right place to discuss, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justito (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mitragyna speciosa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Withdrawal. 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) 13:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop reverting GF edits at Kombucha
Community consensus is required to revert GF edits that correct noncompliance with NPOV that has been challenged. If you want to restore the material the onus is on you, so you can either initiate an RfC, or take the next step for DR. You are edit warring and I am asking you politely to stop or you may be blocked. Kombucha is subject to DS per Fringe/PS. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your proposed changes are clearly contentious as you should know by now based on the talk page.  Please refer to WP:BRD; now that your changes have been reverted, you should now get consensus on the talk page, not continue to revert your preferred changes in.  Yobol (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

PVFS
Post-viral fatigue syndrome was once considered as an alternative name to ME, but not to CFS. The list of suggested names can be found on pages 58/59 of the IOM report. Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

POV edits
Please refrain from making POV edits, as you have done here. Content should be written in a neutral style. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems plenty neutral to me, but then again I'm not the one who's been topic banned from at least one topic for their non neutral editing... Yobol (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Go away and stop bothering me
i don't want your slimy s**t all over my page, so why don't you f**k off and leave the rest of us to celebrate the fact we're all going to DIE??? YAYYYYYY 😄 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam-dino (talk • contribs) 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Yobol. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.prokaryotes (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Looie496 (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

EFT Benefits
If millions of people experience benefits, who are you to say that they are all deluded, based on the absence of evidence to the contrary? Your comment defies the basic rules of logic! --Jonathan108 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of robustly supported distinct benefits of EFT:
 * I didn't miss any. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss any. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss any. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss any. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't miss any. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * 2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi Yobol. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikihound warning
If you continue to wikihound my edits that were made following careful discussion, I will report you to the ANI noticeboard. If other editors follow suit, I'll report you and them for forming a faction. Realskeptic (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * According to What harassment is not, that is a personal attack. Realskeptic continues to cluelessly use wikilinks to pages, policies, and guidelines which he does not understand. Currently he's misusing "BLP" as an excuse to edit war. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, that "ANI noticeboard" is linked to an archived project page which has been dead since 2008. Clueless.... SMH.
 * Here is the proper link: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Go ahead and see what happens... -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "...linked to an archived project page..." -Congratulations, because that's all you have. Realskeptic (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think something untoward is happening you ought to bring it to WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Take it to ANI. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. ANI is that-a-way. Yobol (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Adrenal fatigue
Can you discuss on the article talk page, or here? The source does specifically discuss alt medicine "adrenal fatigue", which is why I included it (as described on the talk page). Thx. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I posted this on the reliable sources noticeboard. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have replied on the talk page and have notified WP:FTN as well. Yobol (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: UK Situation
Thanks for explaining your reasons for reverting my change. As I've just mentioned to doc james, my concern with this section was that it was not balanced. It was worded (either intentionally or unintentionally) so as to give the impression that patients have no basis for their criticisms and are on the whole irrational, dangerous and not to be taken seriously. I think any medical page must demonstrate respect for the patients it describes. Exceptional care must be taken not to misportray or silence the patient voice, since it is the patients who actually live with the illness daily. We don't have to agree with their interpretations, but we need to be careful to present them fairly.

But I'm sure you know all this, and the rest of the page does seem quite respectful; the only problem seems to be this one little paragraph.

Perhaps my efforts to add balance created more problems than they solved. The other way to go if there is no space to provide balance is to leave the issue out of this section altogether and refer to the "controversies" page where the whole controversy can be outlined more fully. I've had a try at this, but it is not great, a bit repetitive with what is included above. Suggestions on how we could move forward? - Wilshica --Wilshica (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.


 * For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  20:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Yo Ho Ho
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Doc James. I hope you are having a wonderful holiday season as well. As always, your dedication to improving the 'pedia is most inspiring. Yobol (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

Thanks again :) -- Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Regarding this and then this, I agree that 'viewpoints' need to come from reliable sources, but why isn't BioMedCentral Dermatology a reliable source? Peter Damian (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , WP:MEDRS is the guideline that governs reliable sourcing for medical information, and unfortunately I don't think that particular journal article can be used as presented. While the journal appears to be a decent journal, we have to look at the particular details of the article to determine its reliability.  First, the journal article is a primary source and is being used to contradict secondary sources (review articles) that state Morgellons is not a true distinct illness. This is explicitly prohibited by MEDRS (see WP:MEDREV). Second, MEDRS states "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content", and there is little reason to suspect this is an important or significant primary study (it has only been cited once per Google Scholar since publication). This would indicate that adding this particular piece of information is a WP:WEIGHT issue. Third, the article is written, and at least partially funded, by members or organizations that appear to have a goal to promote a particular view of Morgellons. This would indicate they have a particular bias, and that seems to be a problem, per WP:MEDINDY.  For these reasons, I don't think that particular source is going to be useful. Yobol (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Peter Damian (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Exosomes and Cancer Metastases
Dear Yobol, thank you for actively editing Wikipedia pages and upholding the accuracy of their content. I noticed that you have undone my edits on all the Wikipedia pages I have edited. You might have noticed that I edited multiple Wiki pages, however these is because the topics are unrelated - certainly not for promotional purposes. The edits were made because they are deemed relevant and expound on emerging research on the relationship between exosomes and cancer metastases; and therefore informative for Wikipedia readers.

Perhaps as a compromise, please consider undoing the edits on a one-by-one basis, after carefully checking the edits and reading the referenced source. Thank you very much for your consideration, and have a good day.

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.87.179.210 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The material you added appears to be WP:REFSPAM, and appears promotional to me. Most of the material you added deals with minutiae of proposed mechanisms that has not been established, and appears to place WP:UNDUE weight on this one set of material.  I will go back and check, some of the material may be salvageable on the exosome page, but the other material added does not appear to be appropriate. Yobol (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Yobol, thank you very much. I am hoping you could consider doing the same for the Wikipedia page on Metastasis and maybe even Cancer research or Cancer cell. This is because the relationship between exosomes and cancer metastasis is now very clear, after a series of high-impact publications in Nature, Nature Medicine, Cell, Cancer Cell etc. You can confirm this by doing a quick Google or PubMed search using the search terms "exosome" and "metastasis".

Thank you again for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.87.179.210 (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Effects of pornography
Hi, about your removals of "unreliable medical source" templates, I have checked those articles on PubMed and there is no mention of "Indexed for MEDLINE". Could you explain why there is no such mention? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked them myself, and the journals cited are indeed indexed in MEDLINE. See the footnotes of WP:MEDRS to see how to check the journals (not necessarily the article page) for MEDLINE indexing. Yobol (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this makes me wonder, sometimes there is written "Indexed for MEDLINE", sometimes not. Does PubMed need time to process the papers or something like that? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered why certain articles do not have that at the bottom of the page; unfortunately I do not have that answer, but that's why I always check the journal, and not the specific article. Yobol (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment of Alkaline diet
Alkaline diet, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Glad to see you're still alive and editing! The effort to suppress The Truth about baking soda enemas and other natural cancer cures just hasn't been the same without you. As you can probably see, Wikipedia is pretty much the same, except that the ratio of sane people to obsessive half-wits continues to approach its asymptotic limit of zero. MastCell Talk 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello! Glad to see you around as well! Personal/professional life has sucked up all the free time I would have been using for editing. And, of course, you know the Pharma/Vaccine/Biotech/Illuminati lobby group really aren't paying what they used to - certainly not enough to keep me around for long. I mean, who in their right mind would put up with this nonsense for free?!? ;) Yobol (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)