User talk:ScienceFlyer

Hello, ScienceFlyer. We need to work out the issues with the current usage of "Quackwatch" as an attributed source on the article about the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. First, I have to cover what I take as a bit of a personal slight: your edit summaries thus far have been lacking greatly. "It's all fine" is not an argument, and consensus is built on the soundness of the arguments made. It's very hard to take your reverts seriously and in good faith when there is no sensible information in the edit summary.

So here I am to discuss with you directly.

The biggest issue I have with Quackwatch is that most of the site's content is simply Stephen Barrett's opinion. You are likely aware that QW has been extensively discussed. The consensus is that content from that site is almost always wp:SPS, and that articles by Barrett are often only his opinion. In this case, the linked article is merely Barrett's opinion that he "distrusts" this large list of groups.

I think I can accepts QW's point being in this "legitimacy" section (though maybe a retitle should be made at a later time). I think we would need stronger attribution (to Barrett, not just Quackwatch) and want the exact contention made actually in the article (for promotion of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity). I think the "29 of their doctors have had disciplinary actions against them" is like begging the question ("have you stopped beating your wife"). There's absolutely no context and appears to exist as information only to discredit, rather than inform. It should be removed per wp:pov. Finally, I don't know why you removed the sourced information that the AAEM is accredited to issue CME. That seems a very relevant counter-point to Barrett's "questionable" status.

So, I'd settle for this as a compromise:

Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch lists the American Academy of Environmental Medicine as a "questionable organization", and its certifying board, the American Board of Environmental Medicine, as "dubious" for promoting multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic candidiasis, and toxic mold syndrome.^[1][2] The AAEM is also not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.^[3] However, the academy is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education.^[4]

I just noticed that the QW info is repeated in the lede, so that would be removed as well per wp:weight. Of concern for me, can we quote the ABMS as not approving something by inferring it from its absence in a list? Isn't that wp:synth?

76.178.169.118 (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [Original message was unsigned. I have added the signature after the fact with the correct timestamp. diff:]

Will you please discuss? Give me a good faith effort to edit this section to be in better keeping with WP guidelines. Instead of a further revert, try a second edit. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please leave messages on the article talk pages rather than this personal talk page. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Lyme disease#new photo

Hi, I think the photo of the Lyme patient might need an extra step of a link with underscores. Please compare to the photos regarding Capricorn One novels.

Since these are side-by-side photos, I’m using this as a potential model.

Capricorn One#Other media

Click on either photo, click on “More details,” and you’ll see the name in blue with underscores between the words. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Bingo! We’re in business! The key step seemed to be removing “thumb|upright . . . ”, a change which another Wiki member made.

I’m planning to first look at the 4 references given for the current photo and see if I can incorporate 1 or 2 of these in the article text.

Again, thanks for getting this rolling and for finding the photo you posted. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@ScienceFlyer: Hi, please think of me as a potential co-worker on medical issues. I think we worked reasonably well together on Lyme disease. And feel free to pop me a hello on other medical issues. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

We are not supposed to do WP:OR to get to the bottom of ongoing scientific controversies. if something is bullshit, then that's fine, we can cite authoritative sources that say it's bullshit, but none of the stuff that was being linked in that article looked like an authoritative source. It was just a bunch of random journal articles saying the thing worked for XYZ, and then a bunch of random journal articles saying the thing didn't work for JKL. If we can't say anything for sure either way, then the article should simply not have a tirade about the efficacy of the treatment in it. jp×g🗯️ 23:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

FYI: section headings are shared. Should probably have discussed with you first before changing it, but I believe we'll get farther in the discussion if the outdated term isn't used, as it refers to a vaguer illness and comes across to some as belittling.

I don't think you meant to talk about the illness described by the old Fukuda or Oxford criteria, right? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Florence Débarre, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Debarre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have left a question for you at Talk:PACE trial. Would appreciate your comment. Le Loy (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I saw your recent edit here and, as an uninvolved editor, would like to know your rationale for the revert (I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, just curious). Looking at your edit summary, it appears to me that the main reason for the revert is because the edit was mistakenly marked as minor; is this correct? Or should the edit be somewhat "problematic" for it to be reverted with that reason? It seems that the second half of that user's edit was reasonable (to me at least) so I was just curious. Thanks in advance! x RozuRozu • ^tea_cups 05:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Oopsies, I somehow saw the "restore" as reverting the last user's edit. Sorry about that, I'm a little bit sleepy lol. But I think my question hasn't changed; are incorrect uses of the "minor" mark sufficient rationale for reverts? x RozuRozu • ^tea_cups 06:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@XRozuRozu Hi thanks for the note- I found some dubious new articles by the new user JyoWrites about some non-notable doctors. I also saw that the user had made other odd edits, including a bunch of non-minor edits marked as minor, some unsourced. The revert you noted was part of reverting a bunch of that user's edits. I thought that it was possible JyoWrites had made the edits to not look like a SPA. ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

ScienceFlyer,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

hey be warned some people on twitter may be trying to coordinate a pro alt medicine campaign incl spec against ur acct

https://x.com/x3r0gx4/status/2025430929632575584

https://x.com/x3r0gx4/status/2025441600038474226 ~2026-11788-34 (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)