User talk:Anatoly Ilych Belousov

You sound like a great expert on Materia Medica, did some of your studies focus on it, Mr Belousov?--Donald Schäfer (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my lectures, research and teaching focus on Medical works from France, specifically Materia Medica and Pharmacopeias. I leave for the rest to judge my "level of knowledge".Thanks for your comment --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited History of Lyon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Legionnaires and Condate (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) 10:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok, yea I will check those links.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Servetus

Basically, all the changes to importance I have made have been on the basis of whether the subject is included in the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones, which is the second edition of the Eliade encyclopedia by the same name. It is basically considered the best encyclopedic source on the subject of religion, so if it has an article on something, it probably meets the assessment standards for "Top" importance in the field of religion.

Whether the subject is similarly important in other fields I am not unfortunately in a position to say. My best guess would be to check to see whether it is similarly in highly regarded encyclopedias of other fields, and, if it is, that would be a very good basis for making such a claim. In a few months, maybe, as I go through the various religion and philosophy related projects, I will try to go into other areas, but right now I still have quite a bit to go through in the one book mentioned above. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. You clearly know more about Servetus than I do, but together we are making something that is better than any of us. J S Ayer (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your words, I think we all know things about him, we know different things and different aspects of him, and I really appreciate your effort in perfecting this article, in areas no one else can help. I think I can help with some references, actually there is a problem, some of the references rely on Drummond for example, it is a very old source that did not have in count the new documents that have appeared since 1848. If the information is still true according to the new documents, then they are ok. Soon I will just check the references in order to see if If I can detect something, wrong or, ambiguous. Thanks to all the users, we are creating a good article for our beloved Servetus, what a poor man. I am happy I can help, and also happy you are one of the group.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Physician and Theologian Template

They are looking at deleting the Theologian template because some people feel that it is redundant with other templates. There is a move to try to collapse specific templates into much more specific ones (Rather than having a Theologian, Philosopher, Scientist, Artist, etc template, they would just have a "Person" template). I doubt you would be able to push a Physician template through because of this.ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς 19:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I will push nothing. Who knows, maybe the specific ones do a better job. Thanks for answering--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. When you recently edited History of Lyon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Potters (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) 10:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Materia medica

Thanks for all your work. You know a lot. Spicemix (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are too kind. Everyone knows a lot about something. Thanks for your help.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulation of Michael Servetus article

Thank you for your message in my Talk page. I have started a discussion in the Talk page of the Michael Servetus article, but you seem quick to write threats in my page instead of having an educated discussion in the Talk page of the article, according to Wikipedia's rules of behaviour.

Please be aware that, as it stands now, the main explanation in the article is based upon Francisco Javier González Echevarría's hypothesis about "Miguel de Villanueva". This goes against WP:NPOV, as only one line of research is reflected in the article.

Furthermore, it also goes against WP:NOR, as it presents a research done by one scholar as the standard explanation, totally disregarding the academic consensus on this matter. More specifically, the current text of the article violates the following rules:

criteria for inclusion edits (should) present:
Ideas that have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or

Ideas that have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

González Echevarría's theory about birth in Tudela or that Servetus' true name was "Miguel de Villanueva" has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it has not been "repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers". This is González Echevarría's original research, which is very respectable, but it should not be considered as established knowledge or as the majority opinion about the life and whereabouts of Michael Servetus.

Furthermore, using González Echevarría's original research also goes against WP:FRINGE. The standard academic knowledge about Michael Servetus is that this is his true name. By affirming that Michael Servetus' name was actually "Miguel de Villanueva", González Echevarría is promoting a minority or fringe opinion (actually he is the only current defendant of that theory). According to Wikipedia's policy, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is." This is being clearly violated in the article with its current contents. If you are unaware of the standard research about Michael Servetus, I will be happy to provide you with more information, or you can go to your local library instead.

Therefore I must urge you to immediately revert the article back so that it reflects again what is considered the standard or academic consensus about the name, identity, and birthplace of Michael Servetus. Otherwise I will be forced to denounce your manipulation of the article to the administrators of the English-speaking Wikipedia. Have a nice day. --jofframes (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was published in the academic journal Vesalius. Any more things? It was also published in the abstracts of the Royal Academy of Catalonia. I am aware of all the information. You are in a conflict of interests. That is all. --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Riddle, Jacinto Corbeia i Corbeia, Manuel de Fuentes Sagaz, Ramon y Cajal Junquera, Elena Behler, do I go on?--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on New Works section

Please note that I have opened a dispute request on your deletion of the POV-section banner in the New Works section of the Michael Servetus article. Have a nice day. --jofframes (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was probably supposed to mean that you are invited to participate in content dispute resolution discussion, and your statement is needed for the dispute resolution to start. All your comments would be very appreciated. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) (DRN volunteer) 12:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I meant, czarkoff. Sorry for my poor expression in English. --jofframes (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

Do not re-insert what was deleted at DRN, and comment only on the content, and be civil. Any more comments about users will be deleted and will not be tolerated. You have been warned. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 22:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about?You do not read what you delete? I did that about users, yes, and now the last times I have BEEN writting down the whole citazions of the communications the two last times, about 5 mins ago. Deleted. Why.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1 more and you are out. You will be blocked if you continue. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 22:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are you serious? I was re writing the citazions you asked for, after you told me that 10 mins ago, so why are u reverting that. --Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC) It has nothing to do with users[reply]

Edit war of the citazions I was asked, and that were deleted, repetidly cause of unknown reasons, maybe the volunteers did not check what I was even writting.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you think you can violate WP:EDITWAR as well? Do you think you are special and the rules don't apply to you? It is really quite simple. Follow the rules. Don't tell us why you think breaking the rules is OK. Don't make silly claims like "cause of unknown reasons" after the reasons (you broke the rules) were explained to you. Just stop breaking the rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose Account

Mr. Belousov, as you keep throwing at me the accusation that I have a COI (as if you were neutral, being the main, and lately the only relevant defender of Dr. Echeverría's cause), may I remind you that you may be considered a single purpose account. According to the Wikipedia policy, a single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. You have only made significant editions in the Michael Servetus article. You also made a few changes in the article Materia Medica and History of Lyon, both closely related to Servetus and to Echeverría's theories about "new works". Other participations have been made in User Talk pages, either to post warnings or threats (as in my own page), or in support of your particular thesis regarding Echeverría's fringe research lacking academic consensus on Michael Servetus. Please also note that Wikipedia recommends that Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area, may suggest the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus. By contrast, evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake, is more likely to suggest the user has the kinds of concerns described in the introduction. Therefore I will expect a collaborative attitude in the development of the Michael Servetus or any other of the 100 articles that I am currently watching in the English-speaking Wikipedia. Otherwise I will have to report your advocative and non-collaborative editing policy to the Administrators of this site, so that your contributions are adequately tagged and evaluated. Have a nice day. --Jdemarcos (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, De Marcos, your threatenings are useless. You are in COI. Your editions are realted the Crown of Aragon. And I will denounce you to the authorities, cause you are in a clear conflict of interest. Do not tell me what to do please. And read a litle the own sources you refer. You are annoyed by Gonzalez discoveries. You edited Villanieva de Sijena article right? and Cornona de aragon Article, and many people form ARAGON? Look, do not ever talk to me, De marcos. Your actions are evident. If you do not have moral decency, just be smart enough to be quiet. Or you can call Baches Opi again. What a shame. Your patriotic and promotional editions are watched. And maybe it is not me who goes on with the COI, it is some other users who said so. Have a nice life. Besides, I have no intetion of talking to you, ever. Wikipedia is not a place for COI or patriotisms.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:REVTALK: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved." If you insist, your misconduct will be reported. If you cannot abide by the rules of Wikipedia and intend to establish your own particular rules instead, this is not your place to stay. You were told during the dispute resolution and you did not pay attention to well-intentioned warnings from volunteer mediators. Be careful. This is my last warning. Bye. --Jdemarcos (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are used to expell people from wikipedia, as the MSI did with Gonzalez. My last warning too, De Marcos. Monument of Tolerance.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you have broken again several rules of Wikipedia, including WP:PRIVACY. Your behaviour has been reported. --Jdemarcos (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever DeMarcos, there everyone can see what u are doing. It was you who chose your own name, maybe in a pretencious way. Now everyone can see what goes on.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil comments in Michael Servetus article

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Jdemarcos (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Servetus. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted or removed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Pictures of other editors and links to pictures of other editors can count as personal information and be covered by the outing policy. Nouniquenames (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that user disclosed his private information, on name, studies, and location. It is himself who disclosed it in his talk page ( history). Most of it, and the fact he is a member of the MSI, is related to the article so, it must be known for the other editors. The picture issue. Non ok, maybe. Well, I guess wikipedia does not have the tools of actually judging a COI of this kind. It was so clear he was very , very related to all the references he was noting, that I found very illustrative that picture. So, if wikipedia says the picture is not ok, then I apologize for that. But still, most of information I " disclosed" on this user, either true name, studies, location, was already disclosed by him. So here it is my question, is there any organism which investigates if not conflict of interest, then awkward illogical actions by users on articles, such as, being from an institution devoted to an important figure, such as Servetus, and to try to hide half of the work of this person. Anyway, my reasons were already presented. All I regret is the picture. I sincerely think none really reflected on what I said. That user is not discussing content. He is against one scholar, which was expelled from his institution. Every data he modified, was about him (and there are patriotic issues involved, as well as self interest, if that scholar is right on such an important matter, as he was in the Jewish heritage, which Demarcos himself got to accept in the talk page, it would mean such an authority, that people would pay much more attention to his research on the birthplace of Michael, and how it is not in the old place of the institution). But again, I already denounced this, and well if none is able to see it, ( cause of the rules of wikipedia), I would like to know where I can send a proposal for a change of rules, for the future. I think in these cases in which wikipedia should note in the article

"This scholar research is not generally supported by Servetus institutions, some of them are anyway accused of denying this cause of the other conclusions on this same scholar research, that Michael was not born in the location where the institute is built on."

So, anyway where do I have to propose a change in the way a COI is judged? Or on " considered to be fringe" in the field theories, because of the interest of the " authorities" in the field? I am very interested in this, specially when huge scientific peer reviewed systems such as the ISHM,SSHM, and RAMC, accepted it. So, where can I propose a change in the way a fringe-COI authority, is judged by?, Doesn't wikipedia consider new proposals on its rules? My proposal would be " seriously consider and note a possible conflict of interest in the opinion of institutions dedicated to narrow issues, on fringe theories" as according to me this case presents. Maybe steward community? Once I propose that I will close this issue, and will just contribute on it, if there is new data.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Michael Servetus Archive

I have removed your comment concerning the archive on this page as it was in a portion that violated policy, specifically including WP:NPA. Archiving a talk page (as I noted on the linked page) is standard practice. Personal attacks are never acceptable on Wikipedia. The issue went through COI/N and is resolved. Pushing it further may be construed as being disruptive or as a personal attack. Either can lead to you being blocked. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the new section

I agree with your note on the new section, on why according to Gonzalez and some more researchers, (Samuel Kottek.. for instance)several Michael Servetus's institutions deny the works. I will just add it. And of course it is an additional information according to the policies of wikipedia.--Noah Bernstein (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Histoire de Lyon

Bonjour.

Je suis le principal rédacteur de la page fr:Histoire de Lyon sur la wikipédia francophone et je suis heureux de voir que vous avez commencé la traduction de l'article en langue anglaise. Mon niveau en anglais étant ce qu'il est, je serais malheureusement parfaitement incapable de vous aider, mais je vous souhaite bonne chance et si vous avez des questions, n'hésitez pas à me les poser, de préférence sur la wikipédia francophone. Bonne continuation. Cedalyon (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]