Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Aerotoxic Association

Changes made by User:TrevorAANorwich

Updated page to make this page accurate to the aims of the Aerotoxic Association without publicising the website. Also updated and provided references for Aerotoxic Syndrome — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorAANorwich (talk{{subst:spa|TrevorAANorwich} • contribs) TrevorAANorwich (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made by User:EditorASC

I have reverted the article back to a previous form before EditorASC's changes to it. The changes deleted most of the links on the bottom, and while I can agree with the removal of one or two, the rest that were removed were from reliable, secondary sources and the reason for removal made no sense. "Claims that have no WP:RS" make absolutely no sense when you are applying it to a source. It doesn't matter what claims are made by the source, if it is from a reliable newspaper or website, then it is taken at face value. We are not here to make our own opinions about topics, we should only be going off of the sources. It seems to me that this user has a very large conflict of interest in this article and the subjects closely related to it. This bias should not be allowed to be placed into the article itself. SilverserenC 19:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time you have made a personal attack upon me. That is a clear violation of WP:NPA:
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.
In addition, you have violated this rule about how not to post on a talk page WP:TPG:
Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.
I removed all but one of those external links, because they amounted to external spam links WP:SPAM, designed to promote the organization that created this article in the first place. They were "press release" articles, written in favor of the organizations that issued those press releases. Those articles did not contain a shred of valid scientific evidence to support the claims (sometimes outrageous claims). They simply repeated the wild claims made in the press releases. I was following Wiki anti-spamming policy by removing those links.
Links Normally to be avoided
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:
Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting.WP:SPAM
I allowed the one BBC News article to remain, even though it too was full of unsubstantiated claims, for the purpose of showing the viewpoints which the Aerotoxic Association is presenting. There is no justification for posting many other spam links, that simply regurgitate the same claims over and over again. Doing that amounts to posting spam links.
You are not supposed to make wholesale reverts of the edits of another editor. Instead, the talk page should be used to discuss the issue of external links first. That is what I am doing here now. Please tell us on this talk page, what links you propose and how they conform to Wiki rules regarding WP:COI and WP:SPAM. I am willing to look at any external link that you propose, and if it doesn't violate Wiki rules for external links, I will not remove them.
I am restoring the legitimate edits that I made, according to official Wiki anti-spamming policy. EditorASC (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The heading "Changes made by (User)" is not a personal attack in the slightest. It is informing that I am discussing the edits made by that person, namely you. Furthermore, saying that someone has a conflict of interest is not a personal attack, you seem to be under the misunderstanding that it is. It is not and I apologize if you feel that I was making one at you, but you seem to have a personal stance on articles related to this topic, a stance that is not neutral. That, in definition by Wikipedia policy, means you have a conflict of interest. I have no problem with showing both sides of the issue, the sides of whether the syndrome is real or not. But you seem to be trying to only show the side that it is not real and you are changing wording in the article to that nature. Using words like "allegedly" five times, twice within the same sentence two words apart, is clearly not a neutral stance.
As for the sources I supplied, there are all Reliable Sources, such as the Telegraph, the New Zealand Herald, and the Belfast Telegraph. Regardless of what you believe to be "outrageous claims" by them, we are required to take them at face value and believe them, because it is information being published in a recognized reliable source. Furthermore, it is not all repeated information, as some of them describe the pamphlet that the Association made, others describe the lobbying and legal maneuvers the Association is making. And it's okay to have a few repeated things, as it backs up the information. (You don't want too much repetition though, true.)
So, I have explained my reason for including them to you. Can you please explain specifically what it is about them that does not count them as a reliable source? SilverserenC 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your following statement, from above:

"The heading "Changes made by (User)" is not a personal attack in the slightest. It is informing that I am discussing the edits made by that person, namely you."

Just what part of

Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.

don't you understand? That is a direct quote from the WP:Talk Page guidlines for posting on talk pages. You think you are exempt from the rules that the rest of us are obliged to follow?

It does amount to a personal attack, to keep alleging that I have a COI, simply because I have disagreed with your editing tactics, which directly violate Wiki anti-spam link policies and violates the requirements for WP:RS and WP:MEDRS citations. Especially since you have used that kind of Libel against me, in lieu of, discussing the actual issues I have raised, based on the WP:RS and WP:MEDRS rules. It sounds as if you have never read any of those guidelines and rules, as well as those of WP:SPAM and WP:LINKS. I suggest you get cracking, and read up on all of them real good. As it is, you are constantly violating those standards for citations and external links, and that simply forces other editors to undo the damage you cause.

I ask you once again, to please cease and desist from making personal attacks upon me. You have done that three times now. EditorASC (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your following statement, from above:

As for the sources I supplied, there are all Reliable Sources, such as the Telegraph, the New Zealand Herald, and the Belfast Telegraph. Regardless of what you believe to be "outrageous claims" by them, we are required to take them at face value and believe them, because it is information being published in a recognized reliable source.

They are not valid WP:RS or WP:MEDRS articles (this is, a MEDICAL issue), when all they do is regurgitate press releases, without doing any research of their own to validate or reject those biased, ax-grinding press releases. Again, read the rules for what constitutes valid WP:RS or WP:MEDRS articles. If you refuse to comply, then I think it would be seen as deliberate refusal to edit according to those rules. Most of the media have been quite irresponsible, when they report on this subject matter. That sad state of affairs has been examined and reported on by Dr. Bennett. You will find more about that in the "Media Coverage" section of Aerotoxic Syndrome. EditorASC (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to official Aerotoxic Association website reinstated. Links to the official website to which the article refers are allowed, right? --TCP146 (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some "allege"-type words removed in first para.(e.g. four in one sentence makes for tedious reading). --TCP146 (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph Deletion

The paragraph that I got rid of from the article was about Aerotoxic syndrome and was almost a complete copy of the second paragraph under "Research". The superficial changes were just close paraphrasing and the source attributed to the paragraph didn't mention the Association whatsoever. That information should stay in the Aerotoxic syndrome article, not here. This article is not about the syndrome. SilverserenC 08:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Aerotoxic Association leads to all kinds of claims about the dangers of TCP coming from aircraft engine oil. Therefore, that paragraph is highly relevant. If you want Wikipedia to allow a link to a website that makes all kinds of medical claims, that have no science supporting them, then there needs to be some discussion here about what is scientifically factual. In short, you cannot evade the rule against using Wikipedia as a spam page for your website, by directing readers of Wikipedia to go there to read your false claims, without there being discussion here about the other side of the issue. EditorASC (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Criticism" is very unclear and confusing

In the first paragraph, there are errors that make it ambiguous:
"In contrast to the claims of the Aerotoxic Association "Studies such as the European CabinAir project have shown..."
could mean CabinAir project disagrees with the Aerotoxic Association, as in:
"In contrast to the claims of the Aerotoxic Association, "Studies such as the European CabinAir project have shown..."
or mean the opposite, as in:
"In contrast to the claims of the Aerotoxic Association - "Studies such as the European CabinAir project have shown..."
"In contrast to the claims of the Aerotoxic Association "Studies, such as the European CabinAir project have shown..."

This part does not make sense to me:
"...all documented exposures were to high concentrations, greatly in excess of the amount present in jet engine oil."

Then, it is misguiding that the text implies there were symptoms like in "dangerous other syndromes", while it's actually saying there were random symptoms ("only"). A phase I trial should have no symptoms caused by the tested drug at all, so it normally shows "background noise"; The syndromes are examples of other cases where the symptoms are mostly random in some way.

Volker Siegel (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aerotoxic Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aerotoxic_Association