User talk:Literaturegeek

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 something that you have been already told by one more editor. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

I have removed material from your 2012 edit to Alcohol abuse 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)

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)

(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.

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

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)

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)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3CA0:3CD:247F:54CF:D553:4D05 (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that you were a significant contributor to the the article Alprazolam before it was accepted as Good Article, so this is why I am sending you this message. I translated the page in Romanian for GA, and I added a new section regarding its synthesis, using the data available on line (this is the link). Would you like to add this section to the English version as well? I could help translating. If not, could I suggest adding it, if suitable? Anyways, thank you for your time! --Alex Nico (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hiya @Alex Nico:, that is great you have translated to Romanian! Thanks for your good work, it will be of great benefit for the Romanian language readers! I have used google translate to translate the information into English. Yes please, if you could check the chemistry section of the English Wikipedia alprazolam article for translation errors that would be great, thanks!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Done, it looks good now. And thanks for the answer! :) --Alex Nico (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi There,

I saw you on JBL's talk page, and I saw you had an issue with him calling out your perfectly fine edits as "bullsh*t". I also had the same thing happen with one of mine, where I have gotten into what is almost an edit war over some stuff. I just wanted to reach out and ask if you had talked to any admins or anything about his behavior because on review of everything he seems to have a pretty long history of acting dumb on Wikipedia.

Respectfully, Jedistormtrooper0625 (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, abolish ICE clearly falls under the post 1932 USA politics and the talk page should have had a banner making this clear. I requested administrative help and an administrator has now added the missing banner to the Abolish ICE talk page. I have now notified both yourself and JBL of the strict ArbCom sanctions this topic area falls under. Reverting an editor more than once in 24 hours, in an ArbCom sanctioned topic area, is very risky as it could result in a block or a topic ban if you were both to be reported to ArbCom enforcement etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah thanks, I was aware of the possible sanctions which is why I did not revert again after he last reverted as I don't want to get a topic ban or any other action taken against me. The article is not an important enough article to really justify anything further so I'll just leave it be. If admins or anyone else don't like what JBL did they can act on it but I am just going to let it go and worry about other things. Jedistormtrooper0625 (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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 the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I know everyone is tired of hearing about the essay, but could you please not remove my posts? I think the fact that TonyBallioni was the person who originally created this essay, which directly mentioned race and intelligence at the time when he created it, is something that's significant enough to be more than just a personal attack. Before you removed my post, I actually was about to reply saying that I've said what I have to say about this issue, and I'll be quiet about it now.

The real mistake that I made was in not mentioning this point when I first brought up the essay right after he closed the RFC. The reason I didn't do that was because I didn't notice this additional detail until today. 2600:1004:B121:24B1:68A8:B461:310A:D948 (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

All your link confirms is that he performed an administrative action of a page move (he did not create the article) which copied the page editing history across which everyone can view, and you did view it. This is what admins do all the time. Your message was just going to create more drama, another wall of text, frustration and irritation refuting your claims and misinterpretations. And it was verging on personal attack territory and harassment even though you probably don’t have that at the front of your mind. What is at the front of your mind is you feel the RfC close was not accurate, so your response needs to be 1. to hope that the community RfC review goes in your favour. If it doesn’t then there might be, per WP:CCC, an opportunity in a couple of years time to repeat the RfC if certain new high quality sources e.g., systematic reviews, become available that conclude differently to the RfC. I have said all I want to say in that community review, I am probably not going to say anything more, certainly nothing that is repetitive because the closing admin will read it all and doesn’t need to hear the same person saying the same thing twice or more.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If editors try to take that RfC too far like by excluding certain high quality systematic reviews you will have new opportunities to make use of more RfC or reliable source Noticeboard new discussions. But overall JBL is correct to say that you have lost and need to accept that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason he performed that page move was because of a community vote, that you can read on the essay talk page, supporting making it a WP:ESSAY, no admin would refuse such a page move that was supported by a community vote.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Where was there a community vote in favor of turning it into a project space essay? There is the list of endorsers and the AFD, but neither of those discussions directly commented on whether the page should be moved.

Based on the timing of when the page was moved, it seems like the move probably was related to the fact that the person on whose user page the essay was hosting had just been banned, by TonyBallioni. He banned the user on February 21 2019, and moved the essay into project space two days later. I can't determine what the ban reason was, but banning a user seems like an odd reason to give their writings more publicity rather than less. 2600:1004:B151:B695:112B:2B5C:B58A:EB6D (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not abnormal, the endorsers on the talk page is enough for the essay to go live on main space. If you can quote me some guideline that was violated then fine but really you just seem to be clutching at straws. Actually, recently an essay was moved from an indefinitely blocked user’s user space to main space, so it is not abnormal. The essay is called WP:WHYMEDRS. You seem to be addicted to or obsessed with this topic, it will take time for you to break your addiction or accept that you likely lost this battle. Then you will feel better about it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I became involved in this topic a year ago because I know from personal correspondence that Gerhard Meisenberg, an intelligence researcher, lost his job as a result of Grayfell's additions to his Wikipedia article. For everyone else, losing a conflict at Wikipedia just means the encyclopedia will be a little worse than it was before, but in my case it has potential real-life consequences for some of my colleagues. (I do not directly know Meisenberg, but I know several other intelligence researchers who have been worried about the same thing possibly happening to them.) I predict that the current RFC outcome will cause more outcomes like that, and as long as some of these people are my colleagues, I can't avoid caring about that.

That said, I understand that some things are impossible to change, and the RFC outcome might be an example of that. If more of my colleagues lose their jobs in the same way that Meisenberg did, I will never feel better about that, but perhaps I can still be reassured that there's nothing more I could have done. 2600:1004:B151:B695:112B:2B5C:B58A:EB6D (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I had a strong feeling that you were connected somehow to the intelligence research field and the canvassed and SPA editors as well because of the way you guys used English in a pronounced intellectual way and had an in-depth knowledge of the literature and how you all were able to argue in a skilled scientific way. Some of them publicly stated they were researchers, professors, etc. I never bought into the smears of white supremacists by the yes voters. I didn’t think there was much if any socking because a sock investigation was negative and each editor appeared to have an individualistic writing style. Wikipedia is more likely to respect contributions and opinions from experts, even if they have a controversial POV, so long as they work collaboratively in the spirit of NPOV and WEIGHT, etc. Maybe some of those intelligence researchers might want to create accounts and publicly state their identity on their user pages, then attacks of being called SPA would be less harmful. Thank you for explaining your motives which to me make sense. What might happen is the article becomes so skewed that it perverts academic opinion that it will attract new editors, that tends to happen when biased articles happen. NPOV articles tend to attract less attention.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.
Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I don't know who decided to make this yellow. It looks scary. Natureium (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I assume that I'm allowed to ask about this here, since it relates only to the arbitration request to which I'm a party, and not to the articles from which I'm topic-banned until the end of July.

I'm unclear on the meaning of the outcome of this arbitration request, which has now been closed: The last member of ArbCom to comment there, DGG, agreed that an arbitration case is needed. He appears to have been persuaded by your own comments there. But no other arbitrators commented there after DGG, and eventually the request was closed without anyone opening a case. I was wondering if you could explain the meaning of that outcome. Does it mean ArbCom has concluded there needs to be a case, but won't open one unless someone requests it?

Based on your comments in that request, it seems you agree there are issues ArbCom needs to address, so I also would like to know what you think is the way forward at this point. 2600:1004:B167:C948:E549:A895:4F46:2A02 (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I submitted lots of diffs of problematic behaviour for Arbs to consider and I too was surprised that it was archived. I assumed that a consensus to archive was made in the ArbCom private emailing list but if not then it should not have been archived. I just thought the Arbs were busy with the Medicine Arb case and would get around to reviewing your Arb request and was surprised to see it archived without many Arbs even commenting on it. I lost interest in the topic area and removed it from my watch list, too much drama not enough interest, but what I will do is I will ask the person who closed it if it was their personal decision or a consensus decision and they can decide whether to reverse it or not.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP, Literaturegeek asked me to comment here. I'm the clerk who closed the ARCA, but it wasn't my call – every closure is signed-off by an arb. I don't think there was enough interest in opening a review, but I certainly understand if you're frustrated by that. It's not within my power to reverse the closure, though. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@L235: When you say that every closure is signed-off by an arbitrator, do you mean that one of the arbitrators asked you to close the request? As I mentioned, the request had no more comments from arbitrators after DGG, who said that a case should be opened. Are you saying that at some point after DGG's comments, one of the arbitrators subsequently requested the closure privately? 2600:1004:B16E:A6E5:D5F1:B218:912D:32BB (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. The standard procedure is that an arb will send a message to clerks-l (clerks-llists.wikimedia.org), our internal coordination email list, directing that an ARCA request be closed if there is no objection within 24 hours (see our procedures). That occurred here: an arb directed closure on clerks-l, no arbitrator objected within 24 hours, and we closed the request. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I see. Literaturegeek, do you think this situation is hopeless now? In an earlier discussion on this talk page I gave an example of how the content of Wikipedia articles affects intelligence researchers in real life, and we're currently seeing another example of that in Steve Hsu's case. (Unfortunately, if you don't know what I'm talking about, I assume that I'm not supposed to go into detail.)

If nothing changes, it's likely inevitable that going forward a lot more academics in my field will be losing their jobs for these sorts of reasons. Wikipedia has policies that are supposed to prevent these types of abuses, but the policies don't do any good if they can't be enforced. 2600:1004:B16E:A6E5:D5F1:B218:912D:32BB (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is hopeless. Years down the line if the survey of experts were to be reviewed by secondary sources in a favourable light then justification would exist for another RfC to be held asking the same or a similar question. In the meantime I suggest, in the interest of your sanity, you reduce your future editing to that topic area and find better things to do than edit one of the most emotionally charged topic areas.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Articaine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exponential. 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) 06:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've been getting myself up to speed with the RFC (and the disputed close) last year about a potential genetic component to the racial IQ gap. I saw your name in the discussion and have respected your contributions on other articles, so I was wondering if you have any input on the current situation, in which editors are citing the fringe consensus determination in defense of:

• Comparing the weak hereditarian hypothesis (that some genetic component may be involved) to pseudoscience like Bigfoot and creationism
• Arguing there is no scientific rationale for a potential genetic component
• Writing "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component", wording that is directly contradicted by the cited sources

Editors are using the fringe determination to advance the argument that 100% of the racial IQ gap is due to environmental factors, and any dissent from this view is considered fringe, despite evidence to the contrary from a variety of reliable sources. Administrators at the ArbCom case back in 2010 proposed findings of fact affirming as much: "The (weak) hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe" and "The idea that genetics is one factor in racial IQ differences may not have achieved consensus in the scientific community, but neither is it fringe (and, in fact, no other factors have achieved consensus either—although some have been disproven)."

I'm trying to to determine how best to proceed with this dispute, as the current situation strikes me as untenable and plainly wrong. I would rather avoid starting a new RfC and reigniting the whole debate again, if possible. Is there any better alternative? Stonkaments (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick facts

Close

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Hand Defenders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dundonald.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Drug seeking behaviour has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § Drug seeking behaviour until a consensus is reached. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Unreality has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 30 § Unreality until a consensus is reached. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tolufazepam 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolufazepam until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Jfire (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Protestant extremism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 27 § Protestant extremism until a consensus is reached. — Anonymous 01:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Hyperoestrogenisation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 23 § Hyperoestrogenisation until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)