User talk:Literaturegeek

• /Archive 1
• /Archive 2
• /Archive 3
• /Archive 4

MCS

Re your post about an edit war, I did attempt to talk to you here (see my post at the end of this page) after you deleted all the new edits from the past few days.

I didn't see a response.

I'm still figuring out how to use talk. Don't know if I did it right MKarlsssson (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)MKarlssssonMKarlsssson (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Ciprofloxacin

Hello, firstly I must apologise as I am new to Wikipedia and don’t really know what I’m doing.

But basically I am just trying to get updated safety information onto the Ciprofloxacin page. The information is from the FDA 2016 warning. But it keeps getting edited out. I would have thought this was reliable information that belongs on the page?

As I say. I don’t really know what I’m doing and not really sure how to reference things properly. Can you help? Wiki woms (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Also I have probably come across like I am trying to argue with Doc James. This is not the case, I’m just getting frustrated with it

I’m sure he has good intentions, but he just seems to dismiss the recent FDA warnings Wiki woms (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The best help I can give you is to point you in the direction of the following pages: WP:MEDRS, WP:RS

To reference things properly, here are the templates: Template:Cite_web, Template:Cite_journal and Template:Cite_book and you place the templates between <ref> and </ref>

I think Doc James felt the information was being repeated unnecessarily in multiple sections of the article. Usually the same information should be mentioned once in the article body and if it is important, then briefly mentioned in the summary section at the beginning of an article. Does this help? There is also a tool where you can put in, for example, the ID of a book or medical paper and the tool autogenerates the reference template all filled out for you - it can make editing much easier. I think your edits are good, especially considering you are a newcomer to Wikipedia and it is good to see an enthusiastic newcomer to Wikipedia. I will try and help you but I just do not have a huge amount of time at the moment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Altering comments

Please do not alter your Talk page contributions after they have been responded to; it makes an already confusing thread even worse. See WP:REDACT. Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, sorry about that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Faith healing RFC

Please be mindful of WP:TPNO, especially in discussions about pseudoscience. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• While I believe that if Wikipedia was written with your POV, it would be a better place. Same goes for Kingofaces43. Still I am finding your comments to be troubling. Why you posted this comment? Such comments are described as civil POV pushing, and you are posting false accusations of threats and harassment and such comments distracts from the content dispute and leads people to write a complaint about you or at least prefer hostility against you. Kingofaces43 was just saying[1] something that you have been already told by one more editor.[2] Most editors supported the RfC because they believe in continuing the standards, if you really believe that we need to limit our content addition with what most of the sources prefer then we will require a change in policy. Right now it is dubious and depends upon how strong the argument has been made or the flaws with the information itself, even if it has been supported by handful of reliable sources. Maybe you should really take some time to analyze the most important parts of your comments and try thinking of some other way to get this label (pseudoscience) removed not only from this but also other articles. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, Kingsofaces kept warning me of discretionary sanctions (which implies the threat of an ArbCom block) being in place when the consensus was that they cannot be in place until the RFC result has concluded with a specific result. Anyway, water under the bridge. I don't want the pseudoscience label removed from other articles, you are casting aspirations.

Having studied the arguments and how people have voted, I believe the way forward is to summarise what the sources say, some say pseudoscience, others say only certain forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. This can be resolved by following NPOV. We all want the dangerous charlatan faith healers who prey on the weak with fraud and deception and the equally dangerous extremist Christian quacks who directly or indirectly encourage people to reject or delay mainstream medical care to be heavily criticised in the article. I don't think there is one person on that article that disagrees. And most, I speculate, would accept a compromise of labelling, per sources, that such people or those who do present a scientific veneer to their faith healing are pseudoscientific.

The problem is labelling traditional praying, whilst embracing mainstream science and medical care, for a sick relative as pseudoscience when there are two or perhaps three sources that state that not all forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. We can't ignore sources! Most dictionary sources and our own article describe faith healing as any prayer for healing, which means we are stating about a billion people's religious belief is pseudoscience. We just don't have enough clear cut sourcing to say that. The sourcing that says pseudoscience seems to describe dangerous quack anti-science faith healing and not the dictionary definition of tradition prayer for healing type faith healing. I just want people to be sensible and follow NPOV in this dispute and not abuse what sources say and go way beyond the sources.

I do not want pseudoscience description to be withheld from the article because that would be going against what many editors want. Even several of the support votes say follow the sources, etc., which would include a few sources that say not all forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. I am not the big POV pusher you think I am. If people were saying let's summarise the sources fairly and acknowledge the controversy, I wouldn't be doing all the posting that I have been doing.

One of your sources actually says that faith healing is a paranormal belief that is based on fraud and deception but separates it from pseudoscience which implies to me it is saying it is not a pseudoscience but rather fraudulent, but you misrepresented your source, I believe in good faith. Obviously it is still very negative description of faith healing, but it just annoys me when things are misrepresented. Read the paragraph carefully, please. If we can discuss and accept what sources say, we can find a solution that makes everyone happy.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Literaturegeek, you seem rather confused about the whole situation. First, the DS are in effect, and the RfC has no bearing on whether that is the case or not. The current WP:CONSENSUS even at the talk page is that they are in effect because even though multiple editors don't like that, the conversation and subject material is still about pseudoscience. The reason why you were alerted to the DS was badgering editors on the talk page, and I reminded you about the DS again because of blugeoning behavior. As Raymond pointed out above, the claims of harassment, etc. are highly inappropriate and WP:ASPERSIONS, and I do suggest striking that comment at the RfC.

Behavior issues mixed with content get a bit trickier to deal with, but that's why the pseudoscience/fringe topic went to ArbCom. It's extremely common to have people use special pleading arguments that something isn't pseudoscience/fringe (pseudoskepticism, contrarianism, etc.) that you have been furthering in addition to having behavior issues like I mentioned above. It doesn't matter that you're fine with direct fraud cases being pseudoscience when you're actively portraying other sourced pseudoscientific areas as not. You are getting on thinner and thinner ice with your behavior, so the DS reminders so far have been to remind you that you are expected to be on better behavior in this topic. There should be nothing offensive about that. I usually just assume good-faith and assume people just aren't familiar with pseudoscience when they stumble over things like you have, but you've reached the point awhile ago that you really need to slow down. You've been missing key details as well as warnings from other editors to the point you're misrepresenting comments from others.

I assume you haven't realized it yet, but your actions so far have more or less matched the stereotypical editor that enters into fringe topics only to get sanctioned for things like you've exactly been doing. The warnings so far have been to prevent that, so please slow down and reflect on that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note since I'm not sure how familiar you are with DS alerts based on previous conversations. You are free to delete the notice once notified as you did, but "awareness" does not expire until 12 months after regardless of removal. I do suggest reading that link for what alerts are actually intended to do. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces, you are right that I have posted too much and need to slow down on my comments, and I regret that anyone, including you, is offended by me. I do not come onto Wikipedia to offend people. It is not a typical fringe topic because there is a split in the views of Wikipedia community and a split in what the sources say. Usually I am arguing against FRINGE theories, search my username on the fringe noticeboard. I am not pleading or advocating on a personal level, because I don't even practice faith healing, I embrace mainstream medical care. I am just hoping for an NPOV summary of the available sources. Everybody disagreed with you and the consensus was firmly against your view that discretionary sanctions are in effect, and it was an administrator who voiced an opinion that you were abusing this process by threatening me, which was why I suggested you were harassing me by threatening me. Maybe they are all wrong, one admin did agree with you that DS might apply and I should err on the side of caution. Maybe I should again heed that advice and like you say, slow down. However, you reject any published opinion that only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, so for you to come here and accuse me of POV pushing is just not fair, you should read WP:KETTLE. Yes, I know how it works, I am not a newbie... Perhaps a flaw is I am attracted to the controversial articles and the heated debates, most recently the RfC on medical videos on WP:MED because they are more challenging and enjoyable to partake in. Other editors obviously don't enjoy such debates and don't like disagreements, debates and mild drama.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

As for striking, you have tried to belittle me by accusing me of being a fringe pseudoscience pusher even though there are sources that agree that not all forms are pseudoscience. So for striking, well you will have to agree to strike some of the stuff you have fired my way too. Some of your criticisms of my actions I accept and have taken on board, but others are just not fair or even acceptable. I bet you if I shared the same POV as you you would have a different attitude and would be behaving differently towards me. I do wonder how much of this is about you just don't like my advocating for NPOV of the differences of opinions amongst sources. If you want to resolve our difference, I am open to that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter that you're fine with direct fraud cases being pseudoscience when you're actively portraying other sourced pseudoscientific areas as not." I am okay with sourcing being used, per NPOV, that states faith healing is a pseudoscience, so long as other sourcing is incorporated that suggests that this is not the case and that only certain forms of faith healing is pseudoscience. You are assuming that I am wanting to bludgeon my way over majority opinion of the RfC when I simply am not. Maybe we both view each other as wanting to cherrypicking sources? I want to have a discussion, either apply MEDRS restrict ourselves to the recent 2013 source or else if we use old sources, to do so neutrally which includes differing opinions amongst those sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

When we are talking about "discretionary sanctions", "ArbCom", you really have a better experience than me as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Literaturegeek. Still you need to understand that the alert of discretionary sanctions about pseudoscience was justified, maybe we have no consensus to add the template on Talk:Faith healing, but it covers the subject and users can be alerted on their talk pages. I think that leaving a template using {{subst:alert|cam}} was one more option, but it could be argued if faith healing is really as much of a "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" like many others. You should not be feeling offended by the accusations of POV pushing that have been made against you, because it is a very common reaction from editors and it could be any other subject, not just faith healing. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Aye, but I was never sanctioned and never subject of discretionary sanctions. I was 'advised' by ArbCom not to edit war. You might know more about ArbCom with the massive POV pushing sock farm and ArbCom block, per your block log, lol.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't talked about sanctions, but the proceedings of Arbcom, their installed regulations and that the DS template was not misused when it was posted in form of alert on this talk page. I never had a "ArbCom block", you can tell me though if you found one. As for my block log, "successful appeal" indicates that both blocks were false. I had expected you better know that socks are never unblocked unless the block is false. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text for faith healing article

@Kingofaces43: @Raymond3023: I am a bit frustrated being accused of POV pushing, so I am instead posting this to clarify where my real thoughts are at this point. Kingofaces43 made a sensible argument that MEDRS should not apply, at least not strictly, because faith healing is a fringe topic and not subject to routine research and review. Therefore, older sources should be used. Below is what I regard as NPOV summary of the available sources. I do not believe the below text will be perfectly acceptable to either side of the debate:

Faith healing is a scientifically unproven treatment and cures attributed to it are considered to be scientifically suspect; determining whether it can be proven that a person was sick and has been cured in the first instance or whether spontaneous remission has occurred may offer better explanations. There are, in fact, many examples of faith healing fraud and deception. Alleged cures from faith healing are considered to be paranormal phenomena, however, the religious beliefs and practices associated with faith healing are not generally considered to be pseudoscientific because they do not usually have any pretensions of science. However, other authors disagree and have asserted faith healing is a clear cut form of pseudoscience. Another expert stated that only certain forms of faith healing are pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism. Another author described faith healing as a form of paranormal belief that is based on fraud and deception. Faith healing has been described as probably the most dangerous type of pseudoscience because it can cause people to reject mainstream medical care with increased pain and suffering and an earlier death being real potential consequences.

If the consensus were to apply WP:MEDRS '5 year rule source' then all we can say is:

Only certain forms of faith healing are regarded as pseudoscience, e.g., Christian Science, voodoo and Spiritualism.

So there you have it. Thoughts and comments are welcome. :-) Keep smiling folks. Wikipedia is about debate, fun and stimulating the mind.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Once the RfC is closed, we can add this type of content, but where? Lead or body? What will be in lead? There are still some questions that needs answer. Also the talk page has too many sections now that it will be difficult to adhere to RfC results. I think others will edit war over the content. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we don't know for sure what the closing admin's summary of thoughts will be. It is a very minority (arguably fringe) academic opinion that faith healing is a pseudoscience (e.g., there are hundreds even thousands of refs that say homeopathy is a pseudoscience but it is not so for faith healing), which was a major reason I voted oppose for inclusion, but if RfC says include, then a paragraph like what I wrote above I believe should go in the body. Per WP:NPOV, and because of WP:WEIGHT only maybe a sentence or maybe 2 at most in the lead, I suggest. We can discuss the nuanced details of course after the RfC. Edit wars will be less likely if NPOV is adhered to. What I wrote above, although very negative towards faith healing, nevertheless covers the academic nuanced differences of opinions and complies with NPOV. Editors will need to find other sources to edit war with, but they don't exist so don't think it will be a problem. Everything about faith healing and pseudoscience has already been brought to the RfC.

My only real concern is kingofaces43 because I got the impression, which might be wrong, that he doesn't accept there are academic differences of thought on this issue. I for one don't want to edit war or end up involved in another RfC this time about interpreting sources. Hopefully we can all be reasonable and grown up. Anyway, I wanted to let you both know where my thoughts are should the RfC indeed close with a recommendation of include sources.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I've given up contributing to this topic largely because of Literaturegeek's Wp:BLUDGEONing of the RfC page (likely paving the way to a topic ban). But I am forced to say that this bogus invocation of the WP:MEDRS 5 year guidance on medical reviews is one of the worst misuses of that rule I've seen - in a competitive field! Alexbrn (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the party Alexbrn. Good to see you. I think you should reread this sentence I wrote at start of this section: Kingofaces43 made a sensible argument that MEDRS should not apply, at least not strictly, because faith healing is a fringe topic and not subject to routine research and review. You have misinterpreted the whole section. I was saying MEDRS 5 year sourcing should NOT be applied. I think you jumped to the wrong conclusion. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Without providing diffs of your statements you are either going to make it difficult or just lead people to blindly agree with your foes here. Though your invocation of MEDRS for this label (pseudoscience) is visible to everyone here. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay Raymond. The 2nd and 3rd sentences of this diff and then I added about MEDRS in this diff and what I meant by applying MEDRS was if the closing admin or consensus of the community decided to apply MEDRS, it was a hypothetical. I thought I had explained at the start, of this talk subsection, that kingofaces43 had persuaded me that we should allow use of older sources because it is a fringe research area. I apologise for the confusion. I see people as fellow editors, I don't like to view people on here as foes, but I know what you meant, I think. :-P Alex, I am trying to compromise and back away from bludgeoning behaviour at the RfC. I have heard the criticism and taken it on board.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have edited for clarity.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

What about [3][4]? Confusion probably started from there. Faith healing is an old practice, we don't have to invoke WP:MEDRS when we are categorizing it, but efficacy and researches would require adherence WP:MEDRS but only if newer sources (under five years) are available. You can consider these editors as foes, given you have been combative in your comments, but if you want to treat them as fellow editors then you will also need to heed their advice, which may require you to give up your current stance on faith healing. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but kingofaces then posted this comment re. sourcing fringe topics and I realised I was wrong which contributed to me backtracking and changing my approach to this subject somewhat.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I don't want you to have to go digging to look for this, so ...

Okay, fair enough. Tic disorders is not an area that I have researched in detail so I never followed those DSM changes. I obviously spoke out of turn and my knowledge area. My gut did warn me about this, I ignored my gut. It does seem you are right about the suffer bit. I apologise.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, Literturegeek, and thank you from the bottom of my heart. Something similar was said the first time I sought help as a newbie for the TS article, and I realized there was no one on Wikipedia who could help me improve a dismal article, so I embarked alone. Twelve years later, that memory still pushes buttons, so I apologize for reacting so strongly and inappropriately to your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sandy, I replied here in this diff.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I hope I don't use those words too often in here :) Thanks again, and sorry again :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Some advice regarding the faith healing RFC

So, I just noticed that you have over 60 signed comments on the faith healing talk page regarding the RFC and related discussions, and a majority of the past 100 edits on that page were made by you (and over 100 of the last 250 edits, and over 150 of the last 500 edits, and you get the picture). I think it might be a good idea to calm down a bit, stop editing that talk page, and let the process go forward. At this point, I can't imagine that anything else you say could convince someone who hasn't already been convinced by what you've said so far. That RFC is already a long rambling mess, and adding anything else to it will only make life more difficult for whoever has to close it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I have reached that same conclusion. I do a lot of typo fixes explaining the edits, but more than 60 signed comments is far too much, you are right.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry to bug you about this. Have a good one. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's okay, thanks, you have a good one too RRC. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irritable bowel syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Translocation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Work

If you want to work, then focus on the work. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Right jyt, yes I want to work and I want to reach a consensus where text is included but limitations of the evidence is included to avoid POV pushing, and then I want to spend time with some family who are visiting from London. I don’t think there is consensus to exclude it entirely like what Zephyr is keen to do.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to my world

So what is going at Zolpidem, is sadly very common. There are people who abuse the openness of WP to come here and advocate like crazy for things.

Passion is a double-edged sword --it drives people to contribute, but it can drive people right over the policies and guidelines and to just bludgeon the talk page to get what they want.

MEDRS actually developed because our articles on autism were a mess -- we had people shilling things, and desperate, desperate parents grasping at straws, all hammering to drive crap into WP based on the latest primary source, or some old primary source that somebody "re-discovered", or some junk source from popular media or a blog. Working on health content used to be as bad as working on video games. But the folks back then pulled together and after a lot of talk and discussion, put MEDRS together and it has earned broad and deep consensus, for good reason. It makes pretty quick work of most advocacy, be that some company shilling some drug, or somebody who comes here obsessed with some sort of side effect and just hammers to try to get the page to fit with their very impassioned notions.

In these cases, it is all the more important to stick to MEDRS and the other policy and guidelines. We don't bend to accommodate the obsessions of who ever happens to show up.

If people refuse to engage with the policies and guidelines, they end up topic banned or they get sick of beating their head against the wall and leave.

This is not at all uncommon, unfortunately. I am not sure you have encountered this personally before in WP. I appreciate the kindness you are showing; that is very much in the spirit of what we do here. But we need to remain grounded on what we do here, and how we do it.... Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It just seems we might be hitting a brick wall with how to apply policies and guidelines in this disagreement. Maybe reliable sources noticeboard or even request for comments is the way to go if we can’t reach consensus?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

UVF

That definition of fundamentalism is pure OR you know and you're tainting Proestantism by using it in that way. You are also failing to respect WP:BRD and should have taken it to the talk page rather than reverting. I'll return to this tomorrow when I have time but you should consider reverting -----Snowded ^TALK 13:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I was in the process of using the talk page when you sent this, see Talk:Ulster_Volunteer_Force#UVF_and_Protestant_fundamentalism. I know what Protestant fundamentalism is and how reliable sources describe it and it is not the modern day Ulster Volunteer Force. Perhaps you can explain what you think protestant fundamentalism is. I actually personally know people who were members of the UVF - and in fact other Ulster Paramiltary organisations and served jail time - and none of them were concerned with fundamentalism but rather a hatred of the other community and not wanting to lose their national and cultural identity, etc. I do know how these people think - do you? I know a fair number of people killed by paramilitary groups? Do you? Just would like to know your level of understanding on this subject as you seem very confident in your stance. I have read a tonne of reliable sources on these subject matters over my life but that does not place me beyond making a mistake and look forward to reaching consensus with you.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Personal knowledge is no basis for reaching decisions on wikipedia and you see to want to defend fundamentalism. You are arguing a case based on your own interpretation - again its not the way wikipedia works. Whatever WP:BRD is pretty clear, you were bold, you were reverted, you then discuss. You don't put your own preference back (which is what you did). -----Snowded ^TALK 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that the UVF is a Protestant fundamentalist organisation, thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not intending to revert again, I probably shouldn’t have reverted a 2nd time, my apologies. I think the more accurate description of the UVF is Protestant extremism and suggest this as a compromise. It is nothing to do with wanting to defend fundamentalism, it is about correcting inaccurate original research in our UVF article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Literaturegeek. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rifaximin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Translocation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity

Thanks for the heads up re not making significant changes quickly, and for acknowledging that they were made in good faith (they were, and it is demoralising when changes are rejected without discussion).

Could you clarify which of the changes over the past few days you think show bias and why?

From my perspective the current page is very biased (pushing the psychogenic cause line by putting it up in the intro is one example of this);

The content is also very North-America centric (an example putting the N.American medical association's lack of recognition of MCS RIGHT at the top and editors repeatedly deleting the line about recognition by the medical associations in Germany, Austria, Spain, Japan up top. Yes, Germany is mentioned later but WAY down the bottom of the page, where it gets lost. Mentioning WHO's lack of recognition up top? Sure, that makes sense. But why should the US's medical association's position take precedence over other countries's? It would also seem logical to me that recognition should go before lack of. In this way, the north America centrism is biased).

It's also filled with citations that breach Wikipedia reliable sources guidelines (that is, individual studies taken as gospel rather than secondary sources; and Quackwatch, which is a self-published web site and forum -- it's a far cry from a secondary source published by a reliable third party).

I hope I've used talk correctly here. If not, let me know; I'm new. MKarlsssson (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)MKarlssssonMKarlsssson (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Well the latest review of the medical literature attributes the disorder to be partly abnormal responses to sensory stimuli by the brain and partly caused by peculiar personalities of the people claiming to have this problem. I know this is not what you want to hear or believe to be the WP:TRUTH but it is what the best available sources seem to suggest.

I have addressed your concern about German and Austrian medical authority recognising it as a physical condition in the article introduction.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC).

Thank you for your comments. I didn't see them till now.

Your new review, being psychiatric, brings a certain perspective with it. Although it does mention organic brain changes, including "limbic kindling" -- would love to see that mentioned.

There are a few other more recent reviews than Genius' out there, although I only had time to read one, and I referenced it in the intro.

Thank you for this! This is a step towards balance. Can we include Spain and Japan too? Again, I really think these belong in a section on recognition specifically not in the intro. Because, for example, the Skandi countries also recognise MCS as a functional disorder and health condition. I don't think these are the most important facts about MCS to be in the intro.

The fact that it's not recognised as a discrete disease in an index doesn't mean it's not recognised as a health condition. There are a bunch of researchers who say it's a symptom cluster that is likely more than one disease. That was in a previous new edit in the intro that I tried to keep in there, but it was repeatedly deleted. But it's an important distinction. MKarlsssson (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)MKarlssssonMKarlsssson (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don’t reply in the middle of my signed posts otherwise it makes it look like I wrote what you wrote. You need references about Spain and Japan. I am very close to submitting a report for edit warring. You keep deleting it’s alternative medical name and that it is a disputed medical condition. Adding limbic kindling sourced to the 2018 systematic review should be okay.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Literaturegeek, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you Doc for kind Christmas and new year well wishes!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Double !vote

I see that you voted twice on the autism talk page RFC: once to support your opinion, and once more to express opposition to the other opinion. I'm sure you meant no harm by this, but I think you should remove one of your !votes since it may confuse the closer. Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI Alcohol abuse

I have removed[5] material from your 2012 edit to Alcohol abuse[6] because the cited reference talks about chronic fatigue syndrome and not chronic fatigue. The two syndromes are different and studies of one may not be relevant to the other. Alcohol abuse may be an important cause of chronic fatigue, but it is certainly not supported by the citation given. If you have a WP:MEDRS citation supporting this material then I would certainly support re-adding it. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember making that edit all those years ago User:Ward20! The paper gives a list of medical disorders — which includes alcohol use disorder — which exclude a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome, obviously because those listed disorders are more likely than not causing the presenting symptoms. In other words, the source is basically saying in fewer words that alcohol abuse and other medical disorders can cause symptoms similar to chronic fatigue syndrome and it is a differential diagnosis that needs to be excluded before diagnosing CFS. Certainly it could be argued a more recent MEDRS source could be found but I do not see how the source was misrepresented and I think the removal of text has made the article worse. A better approach would’ve been to locate a newer MEDRS source or failing that leave it as is because alcohol abuse causing fatigue is not likely controversial and thus using the highest quality of sources to state the sky is blue is not necessary or a priority, in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the better approach would have been to find a newer source that states that alcohol abuse can cause chronic fatigue. The problem with using the source describing CFS is that it is not the same as chronic fatigue. The fatigue described in CFS is post exertional fatigue which is very different than chronic fatigue, apples and oranges different. I think the solution is to find the correct source which I will work on. If there is any more that needs to be discussed on the article I will post there. Thanks much for the reply. Ward20 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Invalid non-RCF closure

You may not close an RFC in which you voted, as you did here. Also, the RFC was malformed, so it was not a real RFC and could not be closed like one even if the person closing it actually did have the authority to do so. This is bad faith POV pushing. Please reverse your edit or I will report you to ANI. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I know I cannot close an RfC in which I voted but it is not an actual RfC because it was never properly formatted and is not listed. In effect it is just a talk page discussion that went stale. It cannot be POV pushing because I closed it as no consensus, with no side winning, with 5 votes for the two differing proposals. My motive is, after 60 days, the discussion is dead time to move on. I will revert the close though if you continue to believe my action was in error. One thing is for sure, the discussion needs to be closed now, so how do you think it should be closed? Where should we request someone close the discussion?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The RfC part has been struck out and it was delisted pretty much from the start so....--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted my close.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope we can come to an agreement on the talk page. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

	Thank you
	For voting to keep the list of scientists who disagree with IPCC 3. You seem to appreciate that disagreeing with something is no reason to silence it. Kolg8 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert: pseudoscience and fringe science.

(Alerting all recent editors of our Multiple chemical sensitivity article.)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 --Guy Macon (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Ahem

I strongly suggest you wind your neck back in re Bbb23. He is one of the best, most helpful checkusers we have. Read what he said: he's not arguing that we may not block, only that the evidence for sockpuppetry is not just weak, it's strongly against. That means it's more likely a meatpuppet. You might be able to find out the site where they are coordinating if you Google creatively (I've not tried yet). Guy (help!) 21:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks JzG for explaining that Bbb23 is a good and helpful checkuser. I am very grateful for his investigation and blocks of the accounts we had problems with. I will continue to respect him for his skilled and helpful volunteer work. As far as me winding my neck in, nah no need, Bbb23 commented publicly that I was having a snit, which was unfair as it acted to dismiss my argument as being emotionally driven, so when Bbb23 commented with sarcasm towards Guy Macon I think it was not out of line to point out that they were having a snit, which was the exact same term they used to me only moments earlier (perhaps you missed it, explaining this strange message you sent me). Being a checkuser does not give him any more entitlement to be mildly uncivil than me. Have you told Bbb23 to wind their neck in when communicating with me in the same manner? Really I don’t want to fall out with anyone over this, seems silly, Christmas is coming.

The meatpuppet theory does not clearly explain the uniquely bizarre way they all signed their signatures that I have never seen anyone else do on here and I have many thousands of edits since like 2008 or so.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, People who have been around as long as us, often know each other pretty well by know. The sarcasm was warranted. Guy (help!) 20:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I did try googling actually during my submission to the SPI investigation and could not find anything, maybe if I or we tried harder. I still think it likely it is just one person who holds a very strong fringe viewpoint to the point of obsession. I have not seen any good evidence more than one person is involved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Might I gently suggest that we all drop the stick? I in particular should stop responding on his talk page and I advise Literaturegeek to do likewise. There really is nothing new that needs to be said. If Martin Kempf files another appeal a new admin who is completely uninvolved will look at the evidence. In particular, even if I disagree with BB23 on this, we are all here to build an encyclopedia and I have the highest respect for BB32's opinions and the good work he has done. Can we all agree to walk away from this now and let the next person look at it with fresh eyes? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah fine with me, I did not reply to his last post and had no intention of doing so.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Martin Kempf

His latest response was a clear violation of WP:NPA and possibly a violation of WP:NLT. The best thing to do is what you have done already; explain your reasoning in a clear fashion and then stop responding. leave the next move to the admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Yeah, I agree.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Debate Challenge

This pretentious wikipedia editor has claimed to know something about opioids and has blocked one of my updates.

Debate question: Codeine and Morphine differ by 1 carbon atom. The extra carbon of Codeine is demethylated in the liver. This extra processing step makes codeine the 'weaker' opioid because it is less immediately bioavailable. Note that I was able to provide a clear and concise biochemical explanation as to the difference between Codeine and Morphine.

Please review: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin_Barber3/publication/50998428/figure/fig1/AS:394259501993984@1471010198062/Molecular-Structures-of-venlafaxine-and-tramadol-From-Venlafaxine-Tramadol.png

Tramadol and Venlafaxine also differ by 1 carbon atom. What is the exact biochemical explanation (like the one I provided for Codeine/Morphine) which explains why Venlafaxine is neither a mu1 binding opioid nor an NMDA antagonist whereas Tramadol is both?