Hello, Yobol! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - Eldereft (cont.) 02:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions in defence of wikipedia policy and against POV pushing. Verbal chat 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

best,

Sacha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please explain why you've reordered the chronology of the subject's career and removed a citation needed tag for an assertion about what he is best known for. You also undid grammatical improvements and clarifications.

The subsequent changes you made look pretty good to me. Can you help reorder the body so it is chronological and the AIDS sections are grouped together? This seems to make the most sense and to be standard. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user has commented on your position here [1] stating "some external editors progressively changed their position as they received more information". Wondering if you could clarify your position at the RfC [2] Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for getting involved in the controversial discussion at Transcendental Meditation. Few would wade into such a heated and draw out discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this [3]. I read that as the NPOV Noticeboard, not the NPOV article. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NP, happens to everyone. Yobol (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, you recently commented on a talk page to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. Proposal 5 attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN466 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You have done good work bringing sources to light (as has Bruce, I think), but you did miss a critical one. http://www.drcat.org/articles_interviews/html/rootcanal.html Just read it, you'll thank me. The middle is where it really picks up. Ocaasi (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke, if you didn't get to it yet. This is actually a nice overview of the situation from an Australian dental website http://www.shdc.com.au/Root-Canal-Treatment.html#5. Ocaasi (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I've read it (and others), it's amazing what's presented as medical facts on the internet. I agree that Bruce has done a good job finding sources on Price (in general) and he has good intentions. I just think his approach to this one issue is incorrect, and I suspect he's very much like me - very stubborn once something gets into his head. Yobol (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Ludwigs in your recent edit comment, was that in reference to a discussion somewhere about an 'overexuberant reviewer'? If so, can you point me to it... thx Ocaasi (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was from Ludwigs2's edit comments dated 11/1. He removed several comments like that. Yobol (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

fine then, i made a mistake thanksf or reverting it User:Smith Jones 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Np, just trying to keep it from being cluttered. Yobol (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I think that's a clear improvement in sourcing. The old source was bugging me, because it was clearly so far below where the bar should be for an encyclopedia. Thanks for improving it, and more generally for your diligent and constructive editing across numerous articles. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, unfortunately these medical fringe articles are too full of them. Oh well, I guess that just gives me something to look forward to working on after I get through with these laetrile articles. :) Yobol (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.251.228 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well done pulling up that stuff. You might find that IP editors editing history fascinating, just saying.... Thanks for all of your hard work. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone really surprised that one form of denialism flows so easily into others? Yobol (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, indeed, though it is quite a list... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In for a penny...Yobol (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

You are probably holding a conversation with a sockpuppet at Talk:Water fluoridation. Almost every unregistered or newly registered editor there is trying to weasel a conversation as a route to validation. The risks associated with water fluoridation is just not a theme that engages many serious people. I am not sure, but the pattern is familiar. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it looks like GeneralMandrakeRipper and his merry band, but I try to follow WP:AGF as much as possible. I see no harm in pointing out relevant policies in the chance this is an actual new editor, but I do not plan on having protracted discussions with them either. Thanks for the heads up though. Yobol (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured. I feel the same way, i.e. that some advice or reminders of guidelines would be useful to communicate. I have tried many times because these are not intrinsically stupid people, but I have kind of given up because there is no conversation. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit, how does my addition contradic fluoride as a cavity prevent? "A study has show the reason for cavity prevention is not due to fluoride hardening tooth enamel, rather fluoride is acting to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth. ^[1]" I read through the what is a good source, why is this a bad source? I also stated that a source, as to not imply that this has been studied to death. It seemed like recent enough information since there hasn't been a good proposed reason for how flouride prevents cavities.Hardkhora (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I realize now I should have made it clear with the words: "the main cavity fighting benifit is claimed to be..." because like I said this is one source but I can find countless sources that project or hypothosis the mechinsism for cavity prevent. The idea is that some combintion of efects are preventing tooth decay but it seems like a lot of data but not a lot of conclusion on the main cause. The point being my source doesn't say that it doesn't harden enamal rather they found another mechanism that prevents cavities. Thinking now, would it be better to say that: "a source claims flouride aslo acts to keep tooth decaying bactria off teeth by making it harder for them to stay attached to teeth"?Hardkhora (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would take this to the article talk page, but I'm not sure that the sources above support the text change that the mineralization hypothesis is incorrect. My suggestion is to take this to the article talk page, with specific recommendations for the changes you want to make and the source you wish to source that change to. Yobol (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hoping we can achieve enlightening, neutral enlightening, greets you kindly: Milikguay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milikguay (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I do not fully comprehend what you are trying to get across here, but from what I can see, you believe your edits qualify as neutral. I disagree, and would like you to take your proposed edits to the talk page of said article where it can be discussed at length there with the rest of the community. Yobol (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Did you see? Apparently you're my sockpuppet. Or the other way around. We should give each other barnstars! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. No, no, I'm definitely the sockpuppet. I don't even have a user page or a fancy sig like you - that's the dead giveaway. And how does he know this isn't our...er, my...real name? Yobol (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should edit that page more often so I could be a sockpuppet too, as I like both your editing, and, well I just want to be like you guys.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more the merrier! And don't sell your contributions short, either. You do lots of good work, too, just keep it up. :) Yobol (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be the bad cop sockpuppet account, I like to swear. Who wants to be good cop, and who wants to be indifferent cop? Also, we should occasionally !vote against each other in AFD and other discussions so our sockpuppeting is more subtle. Now, I'm the deletionist account, so we should write down who is an inclusionist.

Incidentally, do we remember why we took that long break between July, 2007 and January, 2009? Did we forget the password for the Yobol account? And I didn't realize we were so interested in animal cognition, since I spent most of my time (with this account) bashing mediocre fantasy authors. Frankly I don't know how we segregated our contributions that well, now I can't remember what's my account for criticizing poorly-done science versus badly-written derivative trash versus...I don't even remember what my Dbrodbeck account was for.

Damn, this sockpuppeting thing is hard work. Way, way harder than just digging up sources to substantiate points. Hardly seems worth it really. And we should really pick a pronoun for us, I'm having a hard time telling if I'm a hive entity, confused individual or a royal personage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we err I or (man this is hard to keep straight) invented this account because we all like hockey, video games, and psychology so much.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! I call "indifferent cop" for this account. We're too lazy to be good. Now that we've been "caught", can we claim "split personality" as a defense? Apparently when we're on this account, we have an unhealthy fascination with vaccination. The Dbrodbeck account seems much more fun, need to spend more time on that. (Yeah, I'm thinking royal we is the way to go). Yobol (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know if you spell dbrodbeck backwards you get Lobby, oh wait.... The dbrodbeck account got a flu shot this year and asked the MD if he would get autism, just for fun. OK, the dbrodbeck account should be the good cop I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely time... it's been awhile now since I retired my bad-hand sockpuppet account. :P MastCell ^Talk 04:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, this sockpersonality hates hockey. Can we keep that straight? I did get a flu shot though. Yobol, looks like you are the only personality that didn't, so you might have to get H1N1 from some tainted pork and die. Don't worry, you'll be resurrected as Boyol, a smart-talking hermaphrodite with super-powers. One thing will be helpful, I think all personalities are Canadian.

Sigh. I miss OrangeMarlin. Always made my civility look good in comparison. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah...Canadian...anhwho, I always marvel at the civility you guys have to the patience to show with all the nonsense you have to put up with. As my watchlist has grown, so has the number of times I just want to reach through the screen and smack some sense into people. I think I might have some anger management issues - I blame the fluoride in the water. :| Yobol (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

But really, the best medicine is having all the right sources. Any moron can argue with an editor, but none can argue with a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to break into your wonderful conversation, but I just found that last sentence hilarious. Oh, if only that were true :) NW (Talk) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me it comes with my job. I teach intro psych now and then and have to deal with many claims of the paranormal. A student once claimed to have been cured of her addiction to nicotine by hypnosis. I explained that the success rate of that therapy was the same as cold turkey. She got quite upset. Eventually she dropped the class... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ - now there's a good idea. I can think of a couple of pages loaded with SPAs that would benefit from one... I hear ya about the sources though. One thing I was consistently marveled at was User:Eubulides and the way he would calmly deal with POV pushers by just throwing RS after MEDRS at them. Too bad he hasn't been around in a while...Yobol (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hoping that Eub is editing as a sockpuppet somewhere. S/he was indeed a fantastic editor and it was a terrible loss when s/he left. Hope springs eternal though - have you ever met User:TimVickers or User:SandyGeorgia? They are my gold standards for civil editing. However, any account that has access to a decent journal library is usually a happy, smackdown-enabled account. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't run into them much from my little corner of Wikipedia, though from what I've seen they are excellent contributors. Some good people to emulate - User:MastCell and User:2over0 and others also very good at dealing with POV pushers civilly. Need more of their like and less of the POV pushers - not only do the POV pushers not add anything to the encyclopedia, I'm sure they eventually wear down and drive away the good editors in the bargain. Yobol (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV and SG are extremely prolific and great at responding to questions (TV is usually a great source for article reprints too). You've only 2100 edits and are coming in at a time when editing in general on wikipedia seems to be slowing down considerably, if you spend enough time here you'll probably see them. Mastcell and 2over0 I've interacted with a fair number of times, both are excellent in my experience.

You might be interested in WP:CPUSH. Unfortunately it hasn't reached level of even a guideline and would be impractical to implement, but usually the community can sniff out a POV pusher on AN or ANI without much problem. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geeeeez, I just heard my name here-- a year too late! My, how things change-- now the place is such a circus they routinely haul me off to ANI, and folks like TV and MC are dropping like flies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to my job I can get pretty much any journal article, if anyone ever needs one just drop me a line. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if Dbrodbeck isn't around, feel free to drop me a line. NW (Talk) 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offers, I have access through my job as well. I wish I were as confident at the community being able to deal with POV warriors as WLU...we've had numerous SPAs at the aspartame group of articles being an enormous time sink for months now with no end in sight, despite accusations of shilling for Big Pharma, etc. ANI has been absolutely worthless in this regard. Ah well, I guess being accused as part of a conspiracy on the talk page may just mean someone's doing something right in keeping the conspiracy-mongering off the real article... :D Yobol (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actually, I'm not sure how hard this will be to find. If anyone can find it, let me know and I'll send you an e-mail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am having trouble getting it while at home, so I have emailed the University Librarian to get it for me, hurry up Ken (for that is his name) I want to win this .... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your prize is to damned with faint praise. I'm planning on "my, yes, what an adequate job." Not even an exclamation point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My institution doesn't have a subscription to that journal either...sounds like a real gem. Go go gadget librarian!Yobol (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a subscription, but there is a problem with the Wiley database at our end right now, as soon as I get it, I will pass it on. Ken is working on it, well actually I think he is at a hockey game right now as it is Friday night, but, he knows about it.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned here, thought you should know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Again.2C_at_aspartame_controversy Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh. First time someone mentioned me on ANI, WP:BOOMERANG was invoked and they were warned. 2nd time, they were community banned, and now 3rd time has a block associated. Sadly, I doubt this will have any effect on people's tendency to invoke a food industry conspiracy here on Wikipedia. I must say, the block did restore some of my confidence in Wikipedia, though... Yobol (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same reaction here yeah. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know: I plan to remove clear talk page violations from the AIDS denialism page. After being away from Wikipedia since August, I'm amazed that certain denialist agenda editors continue to waste so much of your (and everyone's) valuable time with fruitless debate. Please object and discuss if you disagree with my position, but I strongly oppose the abuse of Wikipedia as a publicity tool for extreme fringe ideas and feel that a hard line on violations is warranted. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. About time we do something more constructive than beat our head against that POV wall over and over again...Yobol (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Located here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably guess what the merits of the complaint are without even looking at it! Egg Centric (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's true of any given AN/I complaint. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good times. Short of topic bans, I don't foresee this disruption ending in this article. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A block and some warnings have been issued. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is hope for an end to the constant yammering? Yobol (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the subjects you edit in, not a hope in hell. You're going to be fighting wilful ignorance till you die or stop editing. Maybe the precise nature of the woo will change, and the next great killer is, I dunno, LEDs or something, but the woo ain't going away. Sorry! Egg Centric (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just had to stomp out those embers of hope, didn't you? Yobol (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance is infinite, while patience is not. Ultimately, you will lose patience with the unchecked flow of ignorance, at which point you'll be blocked for incivility. The goal is to accomplish as much as possible before that inevitability comes to pass. MastCell ^Talk 04:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So many optimists around here. :) Yobol (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't have a problem with your removal of the rest of BruceGrubb recent edits. I find this all very frustrating. Note the new comments at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#MEDRS_and_Weston_Price_biography and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_Focal_infection_theory. He appears to have great difficulty understanding and applying WP:DR, WP:CON, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, etc, but I think some sort of response would be helpful, especially at NPOVN, where no one else has responded yet. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, he has a bad habit of not notifying the respective talk pages/editors about these noticeboard postings. Responded to NPOVN, looks like others have already responded at RSN. This is all very tedious. Yobol (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks, --Synethos (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I started the conversation here: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Altmed scope?. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded. Yobol (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I encouraged Bruce, seriously, to publish his research independently. It's really good stuff, interesting perspective, completely OR. Basically, the issue is that he's using sources which are ancient. They may not be purely primaries, but if this was a medical article, they wouldn't even be looked at they are so old. I think anything from before 1980 should be considered a historical source requiring his original research to determine its current relevance and significance. Of course there is not HISTRS, like MEDRS, but maybe that will help. Or give me the exact problem with his edits (I think it's synthesis from old sources), and I'll look around for a clearer explanation. Ocaasi (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same old synthesis problem. He's actually found a couple of good new sources, but continues to try to synthesize material to fit some preconceived notion about Price which I can't explain. That, in addition to his tendency to post walls of quotes, makes discussing anything with him beyond tedious. He should try to get it published; at least then we'd be able to use it as a source. But I'm finding it tedious to wade through his same old arguments over and over again; any nudge to ask him to stop the coatracking of FIT in the Price article would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 09:57, 23 February 2011

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

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

I like what you're doing. And ignore all that civility bullshit. It's better to be right, backed by evidence, than cave into the whining of the pseudoscience and junk medicine pushing crowd. IMHO.  :) LeftCoastMan (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but ignoring civility would get me kicked off of here fairly quickly given the controversial areas I tend to edit in. Just trying to make Wikipedia better one edit at a time. :) Yobol (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I will look at the article closely & follow up if I am still not sure. S*K*A*K*K 16:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not sure I understand your question. If you are asking me why people believe in such a thing, the psychology behind it is largely outside my area of expertise, but Michael Specter's book "Denialism" may be a good place to start (haven't read it, but was recommended to me). Yobol (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol,
I was wondering why the scientific journal of the study took by Dr. Doreen Granpeesheh at the Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD), who reported cases of recovered children, cannot be added as a source in the article.
Thanks for your time.
ATC ^{. Talk} 03:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are you aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Further_reading_removal_again. Older sources are often useful reading. Do you have a better source than World Oilseeds for the chemistry of coconut oil? Do you have a better work on the late XXth century history of processing in 3rd world countries than Grimwood? --Bejnar (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not. Thank you for the notice, I will respond there. Yobol (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol, I just started an article for the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, which actually preceded the Weston A. Price Foundation significantly. If you want to stop in and help out with sourcing, or check its descriptions, that would be great. I think the FIT situation is at least moving a bit in a better direction, although there are bigger differences about how to treat sources (and which sources to treat). Anyway, cheers, Ocaasi ^c 08:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually surprised when I didn't see this article when I first editing the Weston Price article; I'll try to get to it when I can, but real life has kept my time on here short, and I've had a few articles I've been wanting to update on the back burner recently. Interestingly, one of them is the organic food article and the nutritional qualities of organic v. conventional foods which should tie in to the Price Pottenger article as well (already updated the safety section of organic food recently). Yobol (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sequence of edits was initiated by the removal (with no discussion of the type you recommend) of a minor edit I made in two places in the article. My attempt to compromise by accepting the other contributor's stated point for the edit was met by its removal again by the other editor. I then responded by tagging the article as POV, since it does not present a balanced and neutral view of Dr. Duesberg's views, and added my reasons to the Discussion page. So please clarify what your objection is. Thanks.Roberterubin (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reverting and re-adding information that is objected to, discuss on the talk page. There is almost never a reason to revert more than 3 times in a day, and you will be blocked if you do so. Yobol (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the policy applies to the other editor as well, and to you also. You'll note that the only initial objection mentioned to my two edits had to do with my insertion of "majority", and I subsequently removed that. But the first edit, referring to Kary Mullis' support of Duesberg, was also removed. It was only after three of these had been done, that the other editor posted his rationale on the Discussion page. By the way, I do not believe Professor Duesberg is correct, but I do believe an article stating his views should not be contaminated by bias, which this one surely is.Roberterubin (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the warning was given to you as you seem to be an unexperienced editor based on your edit count, and I wanted to explain this bright line policy as well as prevent you from doing something that could get you blocked. Any further discussion about the Duesburg hypothesis article should take place at the article talk page, and not here. Yobol (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU it is impolite and a bit dubious to leave cryptic notes like this. It opens the door to speculation that you and Yobol are surreptitiously co-ordinating your actions. I would request that if you talk about me in the future you do so clearly and plainly out in the open. Thanks. Lambanog (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to do it surreptitiously, I would have used e-mail. This is the kind of brief, neutral note to interested parties that is supported by WP:CANVAS. You may read it as cryptic, I'm simply not bothering to include details when they are all on your talk page.

Claiming this is some sort of sneaky, behind the scenes dealing is absurd considering it's on a talk page, and all I'm doing is pointing two (the other party is Ocaasi, but I'm sure you already knew that) interested parties towards my notice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't know that until you told me on the other page. It's an improvement WLU, please keep it up. Lambanog (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and you could have asked me this question on my talk page instead of cluttering up Yobol's. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, I was thinking the same thing. Responded there. Yobol (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I were across this stuff a bit better. What do these people think? Do they imagine there isn't an autism researcher who wouldn't sell his soul for a cure? Grrrrrrr! Sorry. Just had to vent. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very wise Wikipedian once made an incisive and apropos comment here on this page. How do you get into the mind of a denialist to figure out what they're thinking ("Of course the WHO, FDA, CDC, National Academies of Sciences, etc. etc. are in on the conspiracy to prevent the spread THE TRUTH(tm) about thimerosal!")? Yobol (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was great. Thanks :) I'm thinking of asking him if he believes the Queen is a lizard. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHUN is starting to look like a real good idea, btw. They'll probably leave soon if everyone stopped paying so much attention to them. Yobol (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a decent article on that very subject by Chris Mooney: [4] NW (Talk) 23:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was going to use one of the lines that I use on student essays that are confusing "I know what those words mean, but not in that order" but thought the better of it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good one. I was about to make a snarky comment but I thought better of it too. What's interesting is that the paragraph appears grammatically correct (nouns, verbs, etc in the right order) and yet it still makes no sense. Hopefully they'll reply so we can get a translation. Yobol (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should consider the possibility that you're interacting with computer-generated text; see Mark V Shaney. I've actually considered building software which would programatically create realistic-sounding Wikipedia talk-page posts, for the lulz. The simplest approach would be to use a relevant context-free grammar combined with a random-number generator, a la SCIgen (a program which generates scientific papers, some of which have been unwittingly accepted for presentation at various meetings). Slightly more complex, but also more interesting, would be to use an order-k Markov chain, a la Mark V Shaney.

This latter approach would work like this: you have a bot download - let's say - the 500 busiest talk pages on Wikipedia and parse them to construct the Markov model. Then, you use the model to construct realistic-sounding posts. Given a sufficiently large training text, you can get surprisingly good results - for instance, an order-8 Markov model trained on the King James Bible can produce impressively biblical output. The output is often along the lines of "grammatically correct but makes little sense", but given the baseline level of sense evident on Wikipedia talk pages, it would be interesting to see if such probabilistically-generated posts stood out in any way from background. Anyhow, just a thought. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say we do it and write a paper, heck, I was thinking of applying for promotion next year... In all seriousness, that is really cool. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this reminded me a lot of the Automatic Complaint-Letter Generator I've seen plague multiple forums on the interwebs. I think that experiment would probably fool people for a while, which is an indictment of the level of real discussion that takes place on article talk pages...Yobol (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been partial to the Postmodern Essay Generator [5] Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, couldn't tell the difference. Yobol (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of this. Dbrodbeck, if you're serious, I am (half-)serious as well, although I suspect that time spent on this endeavor will actually work against real-life promotion in my case. :P The cool thing about a Markov model is that it could be dynamically "taught" by feeding it relevant texts, which is way neater than a MadLibs-expansion-type approach used by the Complaint Letter Generator et al. The model would be fairly easy to construct. The biggest technical hurdle for me would be parsing talk pages - for instance, I'm not good enough with regular expressions to figure out the best way to remove signatures from talk pages. It's possible someone else already has a solution, though, or there are various hacks to get around it. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too am half serious... It might be a fun project. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know you're a nerd when you find this insightful, funny, and had an idea this might be a good teaching tool for your students... Thanks for introducing me to that site, now I have more places to kill with my time. Yobol (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have that comic on my door at the University.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

xkcd is the gift that keeps on giving. You might want to add this one to your didactic material, although this is my personal favorite. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi! Well, that info I'm adding is something new presented by the denialists. Is Etienne de Harven's position of HIV as an HERV. It was published last year and caused some disrupt among them, specially with the Perth Group. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons presented it. Well, they are not the most reliable source of the world, as I told you before, but it is a somehow acceptable source from the denialist guys. I think is a respectable info we can add, as at least, is sourced enough. Milikguay (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take relevant questions about articles to the article talk page, where others can comment. I do not comment on specific article questions on this talk page. Yobol (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is back at Talk:Aspartame controversy, I thought you might want to know..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. What's sad is he appears to have been counting down the days until his topic ban ran out. Yobol (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems, and bringing back dorway.com again. Ahh well... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, how many times does someone need to be pointed to WP:MEDRS before they actually look at it? How much time can one editor waste of everyone else on that page before they're not welcome anymore? Yobol (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

to a citation of When did you stop beating your wife?! ;) — Scientizzle 20:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*shakes fist* Great minds...:P Yobol (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can confirm that they are very tasty! JFW | T@lk 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

As an update, there appears to be some good biographical sources for her; will try to add them as I have a chance (there's about a 100 other articles I've been wanting to improve too). Yobol (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are awesome. Thanks a lot! I give you a lot of wikilove because you did an amazing job rewriting Adelle Davis! Greetings from Amsterdam, Wasbeer 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yobol (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Pls. explain why you are not able to enlist your objections against my text that you erased: [6]. Do you still hold a position that the text should be kept out? If yes, what is your reasoning? Stating "Numerous objections" without specifying a single one is hardly to be considered as valid evidence that my text is violating any of the WP rules. Should I interpret your refraining from objection specification in a way that your position has changed and you do not dispute my text anymore? Pls. explain. 2. Pls. also explain why you had erased the Wikipedia-sourced image. Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here. Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)--[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Looks like an important topic to be addressed, it will be interesting to see how ArbCom does with it. Yobol (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of an octopus, and the terms are vague so I'll be very impressed if they can draft something useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be too. I would think a case with such a wide scope would be difficult to have specific findings useful enough to actually settle the current multitude of issues. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

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

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

• Kang-Yum, E; Oransky, SH (1992). "Chinese patent medicine as a potential source of mercury poisoning". Veterinary and human toxicology. 34 (3): 235–8. PMID 1609495.
• Liu, J.; Shi, J.-Z.; Yu, L.-M.; Goyer, R. A.; Waalkes, M. P. (2008). "Mercury in Traditional Medicines: Is Cinnabar Toxicologically Similar to Common Mercurials?". Experimental Biology and Medicine. 233 (7): 810–7. doi:10.3181/0712-MR-336. PMC 2755212. PMID 18445765.
• Ching, Felix M (2008-05-30). Chinese Herbal Drug Research Trends. ISBN 9781600219283.

--Stone (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, I should have done my due diligence. I have updated the article. Yobol (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Nice write up and sourcing. Kudos. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, only about a few thousand more Wikipedia articles on my to do list...Yobol (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know that list never gets shorter, right? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...Yobol (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for your input on the RfC on Astrology. Because I was informed that the original RfC was too vague and general, I've reformulated it with specific concerns. The reformulated RfC can be found here: [[7]] Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The proposal is here.

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

Wikipedia can not censore scientific articles and can not delete them. Obvioulsy it has to be noted that it is just research, but removal of citations is vandalism (what you do)--Moscone (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, disagreement about the relevance of specific content is not "vandalism". Please see what is not vandalism. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hola,

Random point, have you ever used {{cite pmid}}? It's great, plug in the PMID after the pipe a la {{cite pmid | 1234567 }} and that's all you need! It creates a template that transcludes the citation information. The only downside is it doesn't auto-fill anymore, so you have to check the refs section to make sure it's actually there; if not, click on the "jump the queue" hyperlink and it'll auto-fill. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have not used that. Is it as good as diberri (pulls in doi, PMC, etc.)? Yobol (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, yes. Depends on the individual citation. Obviously you need a PMID so it only works for medical stuff, I think it actually uses the PMID to pull a DOI then uses {{cite doi}} to complete. The information appears to be drawn directly from the pubmed database, so it should work at least as well as Diberri. The only downside is you only see the PMID when you're actually editing and if you have a URL that's not a PMC you have to add it manually. Try it, I think you'll love it. I find it easier than DB because it never goes down and you don't have to navigate three windows to get the final result. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I'll probably give it a shot. It would be nice not having multiple windows open just to get a ref down. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of issues with it: First, the bot isn't entirely perfect, and you have to watch the output to make sure it gets the page numbers and the capitalization right. Second, I'm super paranoid and don't really want to have 18,000 templates on my watchlist. If it gets vandalized, you won't know about it until you actually stumble upon the page where citation template is transcluded. NW (Talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The likelihood of that happening is pretty low in my estimation, that's a pretty damned sophisticated vandal; I had a thought that all the pages be semi- or fully-protected once created but it wasn't implemented. The convenience is pretty hard to beat... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You have been doing a great job dealing with spam etc. Keep up the good work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful: [8] Be direct and try to isolate the behavioral from the talk pages. Behavioral advisories best belong in user talk, at first. Behavioral issues should only be brought into the article discussion if they aren't heeded and are negatively impacting discussion.Novangelis (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course correct. I have struck the comment, and will try to avoid this in the future. Yobol (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully the tenor of the discussion will be productive, now.Novangelis (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

You might want to see what I found in Google News Archive. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will respond in detail when I get a chance. Yobol (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

As Yobol notes, the source is dubious. Even if it were not, I suspect that you (and the authors of the article) are missing the significance of what the report seems to be saying. (I suspect that the article's authors are deliberately missing the point, in fact.) If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the basic facts reported are correct, then the study involved terminal patients. All of them would have died without intervention anyway.

What the study demonstrated was not that thiomersal is a deadly drug whose side effects were ruthlessly concealed (as the author of the article would have you believe). What was shown was that thiomersal was ineffective for the treatment of meningitis—just like every other drug available to pre-antibiotics 1930 medicine. The purpose of such a study wouldn't have been to test the safety of thiomersal, it would have been to test novel interventions to treat otherwise-lethal cases of meningitis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quote, " In its apparent eagerness to promote and market the product, in September, 1930, Eli Lilly secretly sponsored a "human toxicity" study on patients already known to be dying of meningococcal meningitis. Senior partner Andrew Waters stated that, "Lilly then cited this study repeatedly for decades as proof that thimerosal was of low toxicity and harmless to humans. They never revealed to the scientific community or the public the highly questionable nature of the original research." http://www.iaomt.org/testfoundation/thimelililly.htm#Waters%20&%20Kraus --199.60.104.18 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, the source is not reliable, so it doesn't belong until you find one that is. Secondly, even if it were true (which I do not concede), I don't know why it belongs in an encyclopedia article about the substance. Unless secondary reliable sources note the importance of this, it appears this is just being used to smear the product and Eli Lilly rather than trying to add neutral, verifiable information to the article. Yobol (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have copied this discussion to the article talk page, which is a more appropriate place for this discussion. If you have a further response, please respond there. Yobol (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I've been doing Wiki for awhile, but I have to admit I have no idea why you reverted my recent insertion on the Fluoridation page and then flagged it with the comment need review per MEDRS. I thought the research was pretty straight-forward with obvious-to-read data. I didn't attach any opinion and simply stated a direct statistic off the report. What am I missing? Thanks for the help! - Ckruschke (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Per WP:MEDRS, we should be using review articles for making health claims; too often, primary studies are given undue weight in our medical articles, and even more so that you chose only one particular statistic out of that particular primary study to mention. Statistics about the rates of fluorosis is already cited in the safety section to a review article, so any discussion about it needs to be added there, cited to a medical review. Yobol (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a proponent for or against. Considering the only report shown in the section that I made an insertion is Australian (good or bad), I thought that a CDC study and a generic comment on one data point was not something that needed to be peer reviewed. Seems to me that the sentence would be perfectly fine if it was rewritten to say something like "a recent CDC study claims" or something like that, but what do I know. Also after reading WP:MEDRS, it says that medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies are ideal sources and I'm pretty sure the CDC fits this description. Also the data point I cited is not about Safety, it's about evidence of dental fluorosis. Not arguing or trying to belabor this, but I guess I'm missing your point. Ckruschke (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

That isn't a position statement by the CDC, it is a study (primary study) sponsored by the CDC. If you had read the safety section you would know that dental fluorosis is discussed more extensively in the Safety section, and any further discussion belongs there, not in the lead of the evidence section. Your choice of particular statistic, out of all the ones available, including those in the summary of the article is frankly perplexing. Any further discussion of this should be made on the article talk page, rather than here. If you wish to continue, you can copy this thread there so that others can contribute to the discussion. Yobol (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm good. I'm obviously too uninformed to add anything to this page, even in good faith, and am wasting both of our times. I just thought it was interesting that they state that 41% of all 12-15 yr olds show sign off fluorsis. That seemed to jump out at my simple mind even with the +/- 10% error - nothing any more sinister than that. At least I can say I perplexed someone - that's how us engineers like to leave people! Take care - Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

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

Thank you for the comment, I have multiple issues with the sources and the content, but do not have the time to go into detail about it now. I will likely make some more changes in the future, and will be sure to make additional comments on the talk page to fully clarify the reasoning of those changes when I get a chance. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see an article (a very early one at that) referencing the "chemical composition" of the TB cell wall, as opposed to articles refencing just its "unusual structure." Also, The Journal of Bacteriology is high quality...and I see numerous articles on Wiki pages dating long before 3-5 years. Let try to come to an agreement and sorry for sounding rude earlier. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaghuVAcharya (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not discuss article specific material on my talk page. If you have suggestions, please make it to the article talk page so that everyone can respond. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any ideas about the best way forward here? I guess I'm OK with just reverting and pointing to policy. There's an obvious POV problem but I suspect that's blended with comprehension or competency issues too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure what to do. Either one editor is hopping IPs to avoid 3RR or there is certainly WP:MEAT going on. Already tried to get it semi-protected, which was denied, but if the IPs still act up, we can certainly try again. I think we're dealing with competency and advocacy here. Yobol (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. When you recently edited Plantar fasciitis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acoustic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yobol, the physician term applies to optometrists and it is in the source, search optometry there. Also, treatment of glaucoma is medical therapy so I don't know why you took that out. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shnurek (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "definition" is not a general definition by Medicare for all purposes, but for the limited purposes of that section. Nothing I saw suggests it is defined broadly by Medicare all optometrists as physicians, which is what the sentence implies (and certainly the extra commentary about it being a "unique situation" in the United States is just commentary, and not in the source). Yobol (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why did you revert this? Dr. Bernie Siegel is a Medical Doctor. He holds an MD from Cornell University. Nothing has been done that changes this. Every listing Google comes up with calls him Dr. Bernie Siegel or Bernie Siegel MD. Please reconsider this move. Rosencomet (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already replied to you on article talk page. Please keep article specific discussion there. Yobol (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what the IP is on about? Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:KBlott has been wikistalking my and MastCell's edits. He/She believes that I work for MastCell at the NIH (why? - I have no clue), and has evidently been using proxies to revert my edits. Thanks for the assistance with halting this latest episode. Yobol (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually figured that out: thanks for looking after the articles, and if nothing else, a number of proxies are blocked and several admins have been following up. Acroterion (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

		The Modest Barnstar
		In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.4.17 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yobol (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

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

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the reference; thanks for the heads up Sans culottes 03:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, check the ref:

A disorder of uncertain nosological validity, characterized by the same type of qualitative abnormalities of reciprocal social interaction that typify autism, together with a restricted, stereotyped, repetitive repertoire of interests and activities. It differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development. This disorder is often associated with marked clumsiness. There is a strong tendency for the abnormalities to persist into adolescence and adult life. Psychotic episodes occasionally occur in early adult life. —(F84.5)

Sans culottes 03:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Replied on the article talk page, where discussion of article content belongs. Yobol (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yobol. You have new messages at Skyjuggler1's talk page.
Message added 08:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

DBaK (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work. I'm sure you have enough barnstars already... but I watchlist various articles hoping to catch neutrality problems, and 90% of the time you get to the bad edits before I do. Your efforts are appreciated. bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please address article specific material on the talk page of the article, where I have already posted. Yobol (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi there! Have you reviewed the content before saying it's "not appropriate"? Why does learning what Autism looks like through an autistic child's eyes through a video "not appropriate"? Thanks for sharing your thoughts. --Tyhan 01:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyhan (talk • contribs)

Per our guideline on external links, specifically #8, which states we should avoid "Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content"; that site requires Flash to view. Also, the facebook link is also not appropriate. Yobol (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for clarifying. Understand the concern. But unfortunately the site was created with Flash as its intended design was to allow users to take different perspective of what an autistic person is seeing from different angles (up/down/left/right sides). If you have seen it you'll know what I am refering to.

Agree with you on the fb link which can be removed. As for the first link, the guideline recommends "should generally avoid" (not 'must avoid') which means exceptions can be made. Especially for this case, the intended message and level of impact cannot be achieved through the use of words alone. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyhan (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the site (your original link was actually spelled wrong), and think it is an interesting website. However, we have guidelines for a reason, and I don't think because I think it is interesting that we should ignore the guidelines we have. What I would suggest is taking this up on the talk page of the Autism article to see what others think. Yobol (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! Let's hear from the rest. cheers (: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyhan (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replacing all that gooble-dee-gook talk page history at Talk Page:Alkaline Diet. I didn't realize this was not supposed to be done as I have seen it done in so many other pages. I tried to clean out complaints that have become redundant as the material no longer exists in the article, or the discussion was not article related. Is it possible to background older posts on an archive page? The length detracts from clarity of current issues. The article page has become completely revamped and looks fairly encyclopedic now except for being a little short and lacking information for readers looking for possibly food groups or supplements that fit the description. Yeah, I am a believer in the diet but, even the promoters cannot completely agree on how or what makes it work . LOL. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added archiving to talk page. Yobol (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your work on the Alkaline Diet article is great. I see you made an effort to explain the details of the diet, and differentiate the medical aspects from the marketing aspects. I read the article and I don't see the bias that I saw in the past. I still think a bit more information about the major published books on the diet will help, but certainly what is there now is a real step in the right direction. I posted this comment below to another user to clarify some points, that may or may not matter to you. Again, good effort to fix the article. Maximus. IPMaximus (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point about the diet was that when I was shown website articles that were supposed to claim that the diet claims to alter blood pH, they did not say that. When I pointed this out I was told I was using semantics. So while it is nice that you repeatedly claim there are articles which say the diet claims to altes blood pH, I have not seen one. I also don't claim to be an expert. I do understand though that Wikipedia gives weight to independently published books ahead of self published websites, and I have read some of these books. While the misrepresentation of the diet by those who have not read those books continues, the article remains biased by ignoring the major primary sources. IPMaximus (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Replied on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "X-ray computed tomography". Thank you. --79.179.224.214 (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your reason for revert on the circumcision article. Could you please explain? Thanks! Crimsoncorvid (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on talk page, where article specific discussion belongs. Yobol (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user may need a review of their edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.46.198.232 if you have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. Any particular concerns? Yobol (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreffed and I see you had issues of copyright in the past. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol, you said that the site from the owner of the Starchild_skull is not a reliable source, why is that? why it's different from others sites? They have new DNA tests and facts the need to be put in the Wikipedia article, is there any agenda here? I'm new to wikipedia, sorry for the lack of technical understand of this, will wait for your reply subkelvin —Preceding undated comment added 17:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct article specific questions to the talk page of the article. I will start a new thread there. Yobol (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol,

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

Writer (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "X-ray_computed_tomography". Thank you. --Nenpog (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, My apologies about the revert on the Reiki article. It was incorrect, and most certainly should not have been made. It was late and I probably shouldn't have been editing anyways, but I completely misread the context of your edit. Again, I apologize and I will make every effort to minimize such mistakes occuring again. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 14:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is found from a multicenter study published from a highly regarded journal (British Medical Journal) in Dec 2011. Please respect the evidence even if you may disagree with the findings.

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

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

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

Dude, you're an asset to the wiki; that's all. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Yobol,

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

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

Leannet3 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)leannet3[reply]

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

My reason for coming here was not to discuss aspertame per se. I was curious whether you provided any info about yourself. I confess, my initial assumption was that you worked for the chemical industry. I felt your enforcement of the rules was being done in such a way as to mask the existence of valid scientific uncertainty. Please don't misunderstand me. I fully support the guideline about individual research studies - I have posted inappropriately before and you were absolutely correct to make the changes you did. I also applaude your efforts to fight pseudoscience. However, I believe we also need to find a way to report the simple existence of an ongoing scientific debate. Specific issues may have either a low or high degree of uniformity and agreement within the scientific community. It seems to me that giving readers a sense of this is also important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannet3 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to finding the most neutral way to present a subject is to find high quality secondary sources, such as the ones already cited. If there is a controversy, it will be cited in the reviews. Cherry picking one or two sentences out of a review in order to undermine the conclusion of a review does not appear to me be a neutral way to describe the debate or to build an encyclopedia article. Please direct further specifics about the article to the talk page of the article. Yobol (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yobol, I'm certain that you do infinitely more good on wikipedia than bad. However, I have to say that my personal experience of your editing approach and our discussion of the past few days has been extremely discouraging. I wish you had treated me as someone to encourage and mentor, rather than as an adversary to shut down at all costs. I believe that you have portrayed elements of WP:MEDRS and other WP policies as more strict than they actually are and in contradiction to the spirit in which they are intended (see WP:LAWYER). You have falsely accused me of cherry-picking and making erroneous conclusions, used bullying language, and despite our reaching some points of consensus on the talk page, you have made all edits yourself. I hope that is not how quality wikipedia editing is supposed to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannet3 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear in that I have no intention of "bullying" anyone, I only want to make sure the high quality of Wikipedia's articles are maintained. Certainly Wikipedia needs good editors and I hope we can collaborate on more articles together as you gain more experience. Unfortunately, I have to be frank in that I see too much poor reading of sources, poor understanding of policy and guidelines, and what appears to be a persistent attempt at pushing an agenda; however, I am hopeful that this is only a mistaken impression on my part based on a limited interaction on one article. If you have a problem with the way I have addressed the dispute, you are welcome to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process or to go the relevant talk pages or WP:Noticeboards of the guidelines and policies you believe I am mistaken about to ask specific questions. I have neither the time nor the patience to mentor new editors, though places such as the WP:TEAHOUSE exists to answer questions of new editors. I look forward to seeing your contributions to the sugar substitute article. Happy editing. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned quite a bit about WP policies in the past few days and for that I value our exchanges. If I may leave you with a quote that hints at my agenda, it is that "risk information vacuums are likely to blame for the social amplification of risks." I'm paraphrasing Doug Powell and William Leiss. Cheers. Leannet3 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Induced birth before 39 weeks is associated with increased chances of health and developmental problems, and learning difficulties.^[2][3]32cllou (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi Yobol, I am contacting you because you are a member of WP:MEDICINE who has contributed to the article Circumcision in the past. There is an active discussion right now at Talk:Circumcision#Proposed_new_photo_File:Rituelle_Beschneidung.jpg_does_not_improve_this_article_along_Wikipedia_guidelines. An editor has suggested adding a new image of the procedure to the article Circumcision, and there is a discussion about whether this is the best image to use in the article. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Zad68 13:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Nenpog vs. Guy Macon, Doc James, and Yobol. and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Yobol (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, the RFAR request that you were listed as a party in was rejected and closed. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 12:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol, I'm probably going to be away from editing for a few days. If you don't already have it watchlisted, could I ask you to watchlist "our favorite article"? ...groan... Always something happening there, and given the never-ending parade of SPAs, POV-pushers and IPs/socks that are always there, it requires constant babysitting... Thanks. Zad68 15:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Water fluoridation". Thank you. --Gold Standard 22:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Will respond on your talk page. Yobol (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

87.114.156.18 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so if somebody agrees with me and it is 2 v 2 I can keep my edit --87.114.156.18 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and take it to the talk page of the article. Yobol (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How confident are you about this one? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime in. I'm confident based on the relationship of the papillary muscles to the arteries.Novangelis (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I left a comment on the MI talk page, but the above image (by the same illustrator, no less) pretty much says it all. Yobol (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Luigi di Bella". Thank you! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me. Replied there. Yobol (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are corect that it need to be sourced. I attempted to do so, but I messed up. I have now fixe this.

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

I in particular relied on information in this article, and I determined from it that it is OK to swim in my pool at dusk upon coming home from work. based on this one very reputable study, I should not have done so. -Arch dude (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New section started in article talk page, where a discussion of article specific material belongs. Yobol (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work to keep Wikipedia honest in the medical arena. We currently have a minor disagreement at West Nile, but I completely understand you concerns and your goals. I fully support them. -Arch dude (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience in this regard. I understand you want to add the best information to the article, and can respect that as well. Editing medical articles can be somewhat confusing at first if you don't have experience with the specific guidelines used in this part of the encyclopedia, and hopefully we can come to a good resolution to this with help from some editors experienced in editing this field. Happy editing. Yobol (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading PMID 22341164 right, abstinence education doesn't reduce teen pregnancies in general. Per [10], [11], and [12], "abstinence-only until marriage" education actually makes teen pregnancy much worse because it specificially excludes contraception education. Is that your understanding? I should mention that abstinence education redirects to abstinence-only sex education, but given the above I think it would be more accurate to remove the "-only" from birth control. Is that okay? I want to mention that I don't have a very strong opinion about this, and think it is more than satisfactory the way you have it. It just seems like there ought to be some better way to put it. Cupco (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, your way is better. I was over-thinking it. Please disregard the above and forgive me for wasting your time. I still want to say something about how abstinence-only makes things worse, but I see the specific article already does that. ("Kohler further found that teen pregnancy rates were higher in students who had undertaken abstinence only education, when compared to comprehensive sex education") Cupco (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, probably better to be over-communicative, rather than less in a collaborative project. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol, could you please look at this thread I posted to Doc James' page? I'd really appreciate your input. Thanks... Zad68 12:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is this article MEDRS? http://thepaleodiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Cordain-US-Dermatology-Reviews.pdf RobRedactor (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear to be. It appears to be an editorial published in a non MEDLINE indexed journal. Yobol (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is published in a medline indexed journal. Can I use it? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16092796# This second article I don't know if it is published in a medline journal. Can I use it? http://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=479093 RobRedactor (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better asked on the talk page of the relevant article. The reliability of a source is not only dependent on the characteristics of the source, but on what text you are trying to add, please start a thread on the talk page of the article if you want to ask specific questions about the article. Yobol (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A four-year European Union-funded project has found that organic produce has as much as 40 per cent more antioxidants than ordinary produce. The study found that the far superior nutritional value of organic fruits and vegetables can lower the risk of cancer and heart disease, and help people live longer lives. " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2753446.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are peer-reviewed secondary sources published in the medical literature, which is what WP:MEDRS suggests as a good source for medical claims. If you have further questions, please direct them to the article talk page, where article specific questions belong.Yobol (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yobol. You have new messages at Jmh649's talk page.
Message added 02:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Zad68 02:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Medicine Barnstar
		For making sure things are well sourced. Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! Not sure how you've managed to avoid burning out, but glad you haven't. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm kind of surprised I haven't burned out yet, either, frankly. I honestly think that great editors like you all that are working to make this place better that keeps me around. Yobol (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...at Talk:Circ, it's very much appreciated. Also, for a good laugh and/or cry, check out my update to the Sugarcube thread on Doc's talk page here. Zad68 03:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to add my two cents. I think it's been clear that editor had one goal here, and that wasn't improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure if it's "had" or "has," I'm not convinced he has given up. If he starts up again, wouldn't it be justified for the townsfolk to gather up the torches and pitchforks and head over to ANI? I'm happy with WP:MED updating work I'm doing but nobody likes to have to spend a lot of time doing unnecessary cleanup... Zad68 03:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they start up again, that's certainly a possible route to take. Unfortunately, editing and watching over controversial articles is a massive time sink here (I have a number of alt med articles on my watchlist). I wish there was another way... Yobol (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is another way, that's what I'm saying. WP does indeed provide a way to deal with chronic POV-pushers who consistently disimprove articles by editing against guideline and policy... as Jimbo said, "AGF isn't a suicide pact." We're volunteers and our time is limited. To help you free up your time, I'm putting Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thiomersal controversy and Ultrasound on my Watchlist (unless you tell me you'd rather I not). Zad68 13:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with civil POV pushers is that they have to reach a minimum threshold of disruption over a long course before the community will act; only after wasting numerous hours of multiple editors have I seen them sanctioned, and I've always found it odd that we as a community don't take a hard line on them. Nevertheless, I'm always hopeful things will improve. Having clueful editors watching pages is always helpful. Yobol (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... So we're in agreement that community sanctions are possible and useful to protect the articles and editors' time, but maybe we're not in agreement with the subjective evaluation of how much disruption is enough before moving to action. For my particular problem area, I think I've seen enough, and I think I've seen action at ANI for less. But, I need support, so I guess I'll either wait to see if the problem goes away, or the problem comes back and continues long enough that others are convinced as well. Just another day at the WP office... Zad68 19:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder (re [thimerosal controversy]):

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

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

Hi Yobol, I've seen you shoot down some sources from journals you have described as "not PUBMED indexed" or "not MEDLINE indexed." How can I tell if a particular journal is so indexed? I'm on PUBMED all the time but I don't see an obvious way to determine it. And, it's possible that something is on PUBMED but it's not the best quality, how do you determine if something on PUBMED really is WP:MEDRS quality? Tx... Zad68 16:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding out whether a journal is MEDLINE-indexed is a lot harder than it should be. There are some instructions here to get a list of all MEDLINE-indexed journals; you can search within that list for a specific journal. It's not very inuitive; if you're having trouble navigating it, just let me know or mention it at WT:MED. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you, Masked Talk Page Stalker! Yuck that is annoying! Zad68 18:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

at Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision#Is this page needed anymore? It should be redirected to Circumcision. Self-explanatory! Thanks... Zad68 17:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deed is done already... who needs your input anyway?  :) Zad68 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yobol, just saying Hello and hoping things are well with you. Zad68 13:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ditto. It would be nice to see your little red username popping up again on my watchlist. The place feels safer with you around. If you're bored with editing, perhaps you'd like to get involved at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Your clue and integrity would be an asset there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and questions. I have been away due to multiple real life issues, but expect to get back to the grind in a month or so. I hope you all are doing well. I hope the Wikimedia Medicine project goes well, though I prefer to spend what limited time I have on Wiki in improving articles; my patience for administrative tasks are exhausted elsewhere. Yobol (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. I'm doing well, thanks. Understood! Biosthmors (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol

I have been working a lot on the set of articles around genetically modified food and as I am sure you know there is some controversy about the risks of eating GM food. These articles were in a very bad state, having been bombed by anti-GM people adding all kinds of POV negative stuff and my work has mostly been trying to bring facts to the table and bringing the articles in line with the 5 pillars. One thing I have been thinking about a lot, is how to deal with toxicology studies which are one of the bases for assessing risk. I've looked at your edits to medical articles so I wanted to put this question to you. With respect to tox studies.... do you think that the the policies around MEDRS should apply to describing toxicology? If so this would be a way to focus on what is really mainstream science on GM food, and keep out original research studies that purport to show that GM food is dangerous, that have been widely cited by the anti-GM crowd, and widely discredited by regulatory authorities and mainstream scientists..... That is question 1. Question 2 is this: At least for now, I have concentrated discussion of controversy in the Genetically modified food controversies article. In your mind, is it appropriate for wikipedia to address these original research studies there, or should they not be discussed at all as they are not review articles? Thanks for your thoughts, should you choose to answer. I will look for your response here. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the GMO articles have been in pretty bad shape, and I commend your recent work in improving them. I think any discussion of toxicology qualifies under falls under WP:MEDRS. My experience with re-writing controversial articles is to be very strict with the sources, and only use high quality review articles. If there are "important" primary research that have been extensively discussed by reviews, they may deserve mention as well, but I would focus almost exclusively on secondary sources. We also have to be very careful with how we weight secondary sources as well; clearly governmental agencies deserve high weight, while advocacy groups like Greenpeace might deserve mention in a "Culture" section but their opinion should not carry any weight as far as the scientific/medical content. Hope this helps. Yobol (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that is very helpful! Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's ironic that the article blames the media for uncritically accepting an article just because it's in a medical journal when we seem to be proposing the same behaviour. Regards 92.16.50.16 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take article specific material to the article talk page, where it belongs, and not here. I have already responded about this topic there. Yobol (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it thanks, you're quicker on the keyboard than me. Also had a look a BRD, thanks for recommendation, will try to restart the cycle tomorrow. IP is Nernst,(hence 3 edits) logged out and couldn't be bothered to log back in 92.16.50.16 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should not "restart the cycle" tomorrow (you don't get to be "bold" again just because it is a day later). Now that there is a discussion on the the talk page, you need to wait for consensus before re-introducing that edit. While the bright line of over 3 edits a day is a blockable offense, continuing to restore edits against objections can also get you blocked. Yobol (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol, your input here would be especially valuable to me. Cheers... Zad68 13:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

That is a worry. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully just a temporary break...Yobol (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

01:00, 27 November 2012 --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a good sign. Hopefully back soon...Yobol (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to:

• Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
• Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
• Administrate article feedback.

Please remember that this user right:

• Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
• Does not grant you any special status above other editors.

You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yobol (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed a reference about the effect of low concentrations of chlorine dioxide on rats. The conclusions mirrored OSHA's PEL for human exposure. The reason for removing it was that "we don't user primary animal studies, per WP:MEDRS". WP:MEDRS does not prohibit primary sources...it only states a preference for review articles. The reference you removed was very recent, appeared in a peer-reviewed, reputable journal (it is the official journal of the European Society for Environmental and Occupational Medicine) and is available in its entirety online. All of these attributes are considered desirable by WP:MEDRS. I would like a fuller explanation for your deletion of this reference. I do not have any personal interest in the reference, but I do not like seeing useful information deleted from Wikipedia.Silverchemist (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that something isn't prohibited does not mean that it therefore that material must automatically be left in the article. In this case, WP:MEDRS specifically cautions against recent primariy studies that have not been reviewed, and cautions against animal studies. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of articles published that discuss any particular topic. Most do not belong in Wikipedia (else we would have bloated articles citing thousands of primary studies, making this a repository for studies, and not an encyclopedia). We rely on secondary sources to determine which results deserve mention here. In this case, the addition of that material violates WP:WEIGHT as well - why are emphasizing that one primary study and leaving out all others? Yobol (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was excellent. Although I'm getting a bit concerned because now all that's happening is that our Talk page arguments are simply happening at DR. Isn't something different supposed to happen at DR? Zad68 03:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, not really. We're getting new eyes on the subject, but nothing that occurs there is binding. As new editors join, they tend to form a consensus one way or another. It's basically an RfC at another location, though the volunteers there tend to be clueful editors, rather than random people showing up at an RfC. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see in the history that others have put things in their own words and sited references and it was taken down. If a person who is knowledgeable on a subject is disqualified because they are a practitioner then how is a reference that offers no knowledge on the subject kept in? When I put the existing research into my own paraphrase and sight the references are you just going to delete it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.87.87 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read through the archives of the talk page. Appropriate sources would be those that comply with our guideline on reliable sources for medical claims, and that are independent of promotion. Feinstein is a promoter of the subject, and not an independent source to discuss it. Independent sources that have since been provided do not support the use of EFT; if you find appropriate high quality sources, then we can certain discuss them coming in. Note that we do not use individual primary studies, but secondary sources (such as reviews) that provide overview of the subject. WP:FRINGE would also be a good place to start to learn about Wikipedia guidelines on how to discuss fringe topics. The sources you want to add do not appear to be appropriate, and should be removed if you tried to add them again. Yobol (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You are more than welcome to try to discuss such things on the talk page to get consensus, though I would say your reading of what counts as reliable and as independent is very far off of what Wikipedia considers reliable. Yobol (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Argh me too! I wanted that revert! In fact I had it done and committed but saw yours got in first, grrr!! Zad68 03:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I doubt that will be the last revert of that editor on that page... Yobol (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acne vulgaris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thanks for all you do to keep medical article in shape !! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

kindly reply to my messages on your talk page. If you factually agree with me, please revert your revert.Ryanspir (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on the article talk page, where article specific information belongs. Please note for future reference I have that article on my watchlist, and would prefer you not write multiple messages here. You can safely assume that I will see any discussion, and will reply there if I wish to. Yobol (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable studies from numerous sources in reputable medical journals which contain information which could be useful to millions of women across the globe should be included on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor1112 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have very specific guidelines on appropriate medical sourcing. At some point, I will attempt to rewrite that section, using appropriate seconary reviews, as opposed to using primary sources. Yobol (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I will copy this message to the article talk page and respond there. Yobol (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i propose a peace and to interact based on a good faith. Do you accept?Ryanspir (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen 0 evidence Yobol has acted in bad faith. Biosthmors (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have always acted in good faith and assumed it during my interactions with you as well.Yobol (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so do we have a peace then? I'm also acting in a good faith.Ryanspir (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "peace", nor do I want to interact any further on this topic here. If I have something further to say I will say so on the article talk pages. Further attempts to discuss this article on this talk page will be removed. Yobol (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I have no problem interacting with you, nor do I want to discuss this further. I have therefore removed your most recent comments, and will continue to do so as I have said all I will say on the topic. Yobol (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to start en edit war, but the page as presented is completely inaccurate. The "leads" discusses a lymphocyte-derived molecule but the uses and side effects has nothing to do with this. The "uses" and "side effects" as it stands it are for dietary supplements labeled as transfer factor. By sticking the two together you are giving the impression that they are the same. The leads should be treated as a lymphokine, the remaining needs to be a separate article. LCDR IAM (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article specific discussion should occur on the article talk page, not here. While I agree that there is substantial room for improvement, your changes violates a number of our guidelines and from my standpoint made things worse. Let's start the discussion on the talk page about appropriate sources and how to use them. Yobol (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the talk page. LCDR IAM seems to have a much better appreciation of things now and seems to understand what is required to edit a good page. If you could keep an eye on the page, this time to see if s/he needs any help or corrections, I'd be much obliged. If they're a genuine expert, it'd be nice if we could encourage their participation and hopefully retain them :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I know how hard it is to deal with new editors one on one. I'll keep it on my watchlist, but my time on wiki is hit/miss lately. I hope they stick around, they seem to have a good attitude. Yobol (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to stick around. I read a lot, if I don't edit wikipedia it has nowhere to go :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the better for Wikipedia that you stick around and improve the place. :) Yobol (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Emotional Freedom Techniques".

...I had left the EW warning for EFT specifically just because I thought that might be where it was going to end up. Hope you don't mind I edited the report to add the diffs for the two separate warnings left for the two articles affected. Zad68 04:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks for that. I used an earlier warning to show that they had gotten the warning prior to his even starting this particular run. That they have continued this despite the warning shows how egregious their behavior has been. Yobol (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Many thanks for keeping medical content MEDRS compliant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yobol (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the following is relevant: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/2/9/929Pottinger's cats (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I also asked Andy if he wouldn't mind helping keeping an eye on the Orgasm article, and I told him that I would be asking you as well. Are you willing to? Recently, editors have been adding poor sources to it, with one (Reenem) having added original research to it back in December of last year. And I most recently reverted this opinionated edit, since the edit is not what the sources state. This is not a matter of "absolute rules," like the editor has stated, but rather anatomy (which is also clarified in the Vagina article). Considering that the topic of orgasm falls, among other things, under "medical," it would be great having you helping with the article since you deal with medical topics often. Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it to my watchlist, but I cannot guarantee that I will catch everything nor be able to participate extensively in any discussion there, as my time on Wikipedia is hit/miss recently and I have other articles I have been actively editing. Yobol (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. Like the Sexual intercourse article, it's not an article that has a usually active edit history. So there's usually not any drama going on there and not much for you to keep up with. Flyer22 (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry. I wonder the message that you sent to me "undue weight to non MEDRS primary source; we need secondary review articles" for Alzheimer's disease
Please clarify it.
Thank you very much.Manzzzz^(talk) 08:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for medical articles on Wikipedia must comply with our sourcing guidelines for medical claims, which says we should use secondary sources such as review articles, not primary studies such as the one you used. If you have further questions, I would rather you start a section on the talk page of the article rather than asking here, since article specific questions should be on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a high quality secondary source: http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.full — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats (talk • contribs) 11:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Glad to have you back. Zad68 15:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and happy spring to you, as well. Not sure how long I'll be back though... Yobol (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yobol already knows that I'm glad to see him back. But welcome back, Yobol. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! The only redlinked username I'm happy to see on my watchlist. :P MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded! (or thirded or fourthed, or whatever) bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello Yobol,

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

Thanks,

Gold Standard 03:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my edit summary was incomplete. What I meant to say is we don't inline attribute to the journal title like you proposed; first, attribution would be to the author if it was necessary, but is unnecessary for uncontentious material. Attribution, when unnecessary, makes it appear that only that source is making that claim and makes it appear like less the generally accepted principle that it should be presented as. Yobol (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "highly misleading picture" clearly contentious material, given that it is being used to describe opposition? Also, could you please explain the two other changes I made that you reverted? Gold Standard 03:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying this thread to the article talk page where article specific material belongs. I will also reply there. Yobol (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What section you suggest that I add the update about the proposed bill to? -Anajean93 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest it be left out. Wikipedia is not a newspaper; if it becomes law, a sentence can be considered in a separate section, but as of right now I do not feel any mention is appropriate. Further queries/discussion should probably take place on the article talk page. Yobol (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright that makes sense, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anajean93 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm working on finding a direct reference for the pseudoscience section. The basis for this section is factual and difficult to reference because the lecture series it refers to is only available in audio form at a cost of over 40 dollars. All I have thus far is the currently included pdf's link. Im not sure what is required, but I certainly do not wish to open wikipedia up to threats of litigation for libel. If you have advice on how I can make this part of the article I will apreciate it. I would consider making an entry that is instead called " criticisms" and link it to actual quotes in reviews of his literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.146.227.187 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to wait for a reliable source to be published before you can add any criticisms. You can review WP:RS to review what a reliable source is, and WP:CITE to figure out how to cite the text in the article. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could use a hand over at Causes of autism if you feel so inclined. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will take a look. There does appear to be reviews on the subject, will see what they say and respond on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, further research shows that there appears to be mainly one author promoting this theory; will have to delve a little deeper to see how to place this particular theory in context. Yobol (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed you read through this and cleaned it up. the compromise we worked out is holding up nicely, isn't it! Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears to be working out fine. Will be going over Organic food at some point in the future as well. Yobol (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the edition of my article, but I would prefer next time that you ask for specifics before changing my edits. All the publications you removed are very imported for the scientific profile. It doesn't look like cv! They are only main publications on lymphatic system. Not all of them. The person wrote more than 600 publications. That would be too much. Thank you for visiting my article. I appreciate your interest! Anna Karolina Heinrich (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. In general, we do not list long lists of publications like that, as it does not appear encyclopedic. It would be much more preferable if you discussed in the text important papers that have garnered significant interest in independent secondary sources. I have asked for experienced members of Wikipedia who regularly edit biographical articles to take a look at your article as well. Yobol (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Or this?

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

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

Thank you for having been a part of my evolution.Pottinger's cats (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you don't consider my link that you reverted WP:RS so that I can attempt to "ref" it better? Thanks. Rogerdpack (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For biomedical information, we use secondary sources such as high quality reviews published in the peer-reviewed literature or high quality medical textbooks, per our guideline on reliable sourcing for medical claims. The Huffington Post article does not meet this criteria. We should be careful not to give undue weight to any one particular study or idea that has not received significant traction in the medical literature. I hope this explanation helps. Yobol (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll let this particular research bake for awhile then. Thanks! Rogerdpack (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol,

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

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

Anyways, I hope you take my words into consideration for future edits. There is indeed a general consensus that marijuana is an effective analgesic and there are a countless number of studies that will support this assertion. By removing my contribution, you are preventing general members of society from accessing such information. Please keep that in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.28.68 (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding more compatible sources. I will try to update them with more recent ones as I find them. Yobol (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yobol,

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

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

The paragraph must be deleted.

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

Respectfully, Seipjere (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Yobol, You undid revision 553461789 by Mmmcsilva (talk) with the explanation that "nursing journals should be used as sources only for what nurses do" and I'm somewhat confused. Can't nurses do Reiki? Thanks, Margarida Silva Mmmcsilva (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it is unregulated, anyone, including non-medically trained laymen, can do Reiki. However, sources like journals should be used for where they have expertise in; medical interventions should be sourced to medical journals, not nursing journals. The vast, vast majority of nurses do not use Reiki; as such, a discussion of Reiki is outside the natural scope of the journal. Per WP:REDFLAG, extraordinary claims (such as Energy Medicine being possibly effective) need to be sourced well; this does not qualify. Yobol (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol, You reverted my contribution on "Emotional Freedom Techniques" stating " authors are promoters of the technique; we need independent sources". Please point me to the test to determine whether authors are indeed promoters or simply practitioners or experts on the matter. Thanks, Margarida Silva Mmmcsilva (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search of the authors shows that they have different websites promoting and selling EFT service. In the case of WP:FRINGE ideas like EFT, we need to use independent sources to determine whether the method has any validity in relationship to mainstream medical/scientific consensus. If the only sources that say EFT have validity are people who make their living selling EFT, then we have a problem - we shouldn't state EFT has validity. Yobol (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Thanks for the clarification. What are the criteria for inclusion in the next section on EFT (Reception)? Is it solely science based? Or is op-ed ok? Regards, Margarida Mmmcsilva (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section has probably a less strict criteria for inclusion. For example, I think a discussion of how it has (or has not) been embraced in the alternative medicine community would be helpful, especially if sourced to independent secondary sources (in this case, news articles or opinion pieces published in high quality sources would probably be ok). Yobol (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... is not being talked about, amirite? You may be aware that you were recently mentioned in a press release from a morgellons advocacy group (I haven't linked the press release here because it's silly and ill-informed, but if you haven't seen it I'll email you a link). Apparently your sins include being "an active editor on many Wikipedia medical topics" and being the subject of numerous Google-able complaints from other editors, which I suppose makes us brothers in crime. Also, your editing powers are so superhuman that you cannot possibly be one person; you must actually be "a very organized group of individuals" backed by "a sophisticated monitoring system with significant financial backing." Which sounds pretty bad-ass. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, they spent at least $99 on this? They're trying to buy a chilling effect... Zad68 18:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of several things is probably in order very soon.... and this was interesting. Zad68 18:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell's right -- that does indeed sound badass. When I first saw this section pop up on my watchlist, I thought it was about how the new notification system let's us know when someone on Wikipedia mentions us (as long as the username is Wiki-linked). Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Take a break from Wikipedia, only to find this upon returning... Do the donors to this charity know how they're spending their money? With the number of times I've been accused of being a paid shill (of some company/organization/industry, take your pick), boy, am I overdue for that first check. :) Yobol (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I thought you worked with me for the international aspartame and MSG conspiracy, have you been moonlighting? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No way, being on the payroll of the Fiendish Fluoridators has better perks, awesome holiday parties (but the snacks are terrible because they're all sugar-free). Zad68 13:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, it's way better to be a vaccine shill, that's where the big bucks are. I'm surprised it's been almost two years since someone's noticed my name is a (near) anagram of the word "lobby"... Boy, they almost got me that time! Yobol (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Template:WPMED/Evidence? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's medical articles typically follow WP:MEDRS when it comes to references. The links below are good places to start looking for references for medical information:" Yobol (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

See article talk page. Yobol (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that edit at scopolamine. I missed the "anti" part the first time and was just going back to fix it and found that you just did.  :) -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, had to think about it for a second or two with the "anti-" and "inhibitor" and making sure I wasn't misremembering how it worked... :) Yobol (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have restored, in a fashion, the information provided regarding the Craniosacral Therapy Association's position on the topic. If we are going to prominently highlight skeptics' voices, then we need to give proponents' voices equal weight. However, I have removed the soapbox nature of their language, and properly formatted their references to solidly assert that this paragraph represents only their opinion on the matter. Please evaluate, and feel free to disagree. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a disclaimer, I have no association with Craniosacral Therapy, and feel the name way too easily implies "head up your a**" therapy. But I do believe in giving equal voice. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of problems with the changes, but will reply on the talk page if/when I get a chance. Yobol (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yobol. I just wanted to let you know about the Morgellons dispute resolution case, in case you were interested. You weren't included in the list of involved users, I guess because you haven't edited the article recently, but since you have been involved in the past, I thought you might be interested. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. I've been keeping a peripheral eye on that article, but figured the recent press release would cause my presence to be mostly a distraction, especially with the large number of good editors already expressing what I would say anyways. I'll keep an eye on the DRN discussion and add my two cents if I feel it would be helpful. Thanks again. Yobol (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

You realize that by putting "what your wife finds sexually appealing" into the description you've guaranteed that every person who reads up to that point will click "show" and thus negated the entire effort of hiding it, right? -- Fyrael (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Yobol (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]