User talk:Clarkgf

Welcome!

Hello, Clarkgf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cool3 20:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis

On Wikipedia, an "orphan" article is one with no one links from other Wikipedia articles. Introducing external links is irrelevant to this issue. I for one am no medical expert, but you seem to have a great deal of medical knowledge and experience. As such, you can find other medical articles related to the eu-FEDS hypothesis and link to it from them. If you find an article that would appropriately link to eu-FEDS, just insert a sentence or two on the relation and link in eu-FEDS (of course you should only do this if it improves the quality of the other article). For example, it seems to me, that links might be appropriate from the articles on immunosuppression and possibly pregnancy. With your greater medical knowledge, I'm sure you can decided if this would be appropriate and work in links in other articles as well.

As for the problem of external links that won't "come up", I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Typically Wikipedia articles feature a short section of external links under an appropriate header. For example, you might add: ==External links== This wikitext would create the proper section header. Next you would add urls like so: *[Url Description] This should create good external links. For example:

This link to google works in the proper way.

Again thanks for deciding to contribute to Wikipedia; I hope you stick around. Also, it would be fantastic if you would get involved in improving other medical articles on Wikipedia as many of them desperately need expert attention. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to drop me a note on my talk page at any time. If I don't respond to your questions quickly, you can always go to Wikipedia:Help desk and ask any questions there. Again thanks for contributing and welcome. Cool3 23:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a way to help integrate your article into Wikipedia is through the use of categories. See Wikipedia:Categorization for more information on this. Have a nice day. Cool3 00:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page. First of all, I would like to say that I think your article is very well written and reasonably easy to understand. As of this time, I have no interest in seeing it deleted (as it appaears to meet my own personal criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia]]. I assume that by this time you have read Wikipedia:No original research (if not I encourage you to do so). My only concern was that your article might fail some the criteria set forth on that page. Because of my own lack of medical knowledge, I asked an experienced editor with medical knowledge to look over the article. I did this partly to have an outside opinion on the matter, but mainly so as to avoid offending you by challenging the article. If you feel that this was underhanded or any way unfair, I sincerely apologize.

Having read your comments on my talk page, I am now satisfied that your article does not violate Wikipedia's policy on original research. However, I am still somewhat disquieted by the fact that the article title returns almost no hits on google. Of course, this is often the case with important scientific theories that have not yet been introduced to the general public. In reference to your other comments, feel free to edit the AIDS article if it is incorrect. Also, I hope that you continue to edit Wikipedia regularly. We can always use more intelligent, well-educated editors such as yourself.

Once again, I am sorry if I have offended you in any way. Have a great day. Cool3 21:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with some of Cool3's advice above - I'm not sure the article is notable by WP standards, regardless of whether it's "original research", and I'm even less convinced that it should be linked from other articles at this point. Rather than taking my word for it or arguing about it here, shall we go to the talk page? Cheers... ←Hob 05:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response was unnecessarily hostile. Rather than criticizing other editors for not being experts in your field, I suggest that you add the missing references and clarify the statements in the article. As you are a new editor here, I also recommend that you read the Wikipedia guidelines more thoroughly, particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, further discussion of this article should be carried out on the article's talk page, not by personal messages to me. ←Hob 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep article discussion on the article talk page

The extensive response you posted on my user page should instead be posted to Talk:Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system (eu-FEDS) hypothesis, so other editors can see and comment on it. I am copying it there now, but please try to follow standard Wikipedia procedure. There are other people involved with this than you and me. Thanks. ←Hob 01:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General editing practice - not about eu-FEDS

I know I just said "keep it on the article talk page", but I'm going to respond here separately on a couple of things that don't bear directly on that article, to avoid cluttering up that space with things that aren't useful to other editors.

Have you in fact read the Wikipedia guidelines? I'm not trying to be snarky; it's an honest question, because you seem to have a few misunderstandings about the process here.

First, if you feel that anything in an article is inappropriate, whether it's the original text or a recent change, you can edit it. You don't have to ask me to "reverse the changes". There are still rules of editing etiquette that apply, such as not just ping-ponging changes back and forth (see WP:3RR), and being willing to discuss differences of opinion on talk pages like this. But no one owns the article - not me, not you; no one has veto power, except for administrators; and there's no reason to ask anyone in particular to make changes for you. It's not as if I wiped out your text forever: it's all in the article history, which is pretty easy to use.

Second, WP articles are not to be written based on what you or anyone else may think are "very logical reasons" to support a theory. It is fine to explain a particular person's or group's point of view on the subject, pro or con, as long as it's attributed clearly; but the encyclopedia itself is not in the business of saying what makes sense, and the purpose of the talk pages is not to argue about whether a theory is correct. Debates that might be very productive in the pages of a scientific journal are less so in an encyclopedia. This is particularly important when the theory has not yet reached wide acceptance as a scientific consensus - and I don't think you're claiming that it has. That is why I don't think the link from, for instance, SIV was appropriate; by stating that argument in the voice of the encyclopedia itself, it made it sound as if most researchers agree that this is a likely explanation. Again, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - one of the absolutely crucial WP rules.

Third, on a more trivial note, it is basic WP etiquette to log in under your username before you make edits or comments (so people can see who is doing what); to use the standard "~~~~" signature for your comments; and, when responding to a specific paragraph on a talk page, to indent your response immediately below it with ":" rather than copying and pasting the previous comment elsewhere. ←Hob 22:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth, I'm puzzled as to why you continue to characterize my edits as "inaccurate", when all I've done is to simplify and cut back some of the language you added that contained significant statements of fact that I wasn't sure about. If an article says "The Earth orbits the Sun", and editor A adds "at a distance of 93 million miles, with variations that are probably caused by dark matter and metaneurotic frangipulation", and editor B removes the second part of that phrase but keeps the more easily verified part, there is no cause to complain about inaccuracy. The fact that you feel that this is a promising area of research, even if other scientists are coming to share your view, does not mean Wikipedia has a duty to emphasize that opinion. When in doubt, we have to err on the side of not always including breaking news here. ←Hob 22:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly feel offended and unfairly treated. I really am not trying to attack you and, though it may not seem so, I am assuming that all your writing is in good faith. If I really felt sure there was no value in the article, if I thought it was the ranting of a village idiot, I would've gone straight to a request for deletion. Instead I've been pointing out my misgivings, asking for clarifications, and pointing you toward some crucial Wikipedia policies that (please correct me if I'm wrong) you really don't seem to have read yet, which would make it a lot clearer why a subject that is scientifically noteworthy might have to be approached much more cautiously here.

Again, the key WP policies that are absolutely essential to read and take to heart are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research (not really relevant to this article, but still essential to understand), and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The only reason I'm assuming you haven't read them is that when I urged you to, you did not respond, and you keep using terms like "notable" and "personal attack" in ways that are really not how they're defined here.

Diplomacy is not my strong point; I never said it was, so your sarcastic remarks about what I consider to be diplomatic are off base. I'm fairly blunt as a rule, and there are other editors here who would probably be more graceful, even if you started out by calling them unqualified to comment and saying that they are "getting in the way" as you did with me; but productive collaboration takes place here all the time even with blunt opinions. It is very hard to judge one's "tone of voice" in a forum like this, and I will try to do better.

And please believe that I am trying to do you a favor when I say that from your comments on Wikipedia so far, I think your own tone has been unfortunate. When Cool3 first contacted you, your response was not hostile - probably because Cool3 was much friendlier than I am, and did not really question any of your writing - but your response still missed the point of what "notable" means here, and focused much too much on detailing your expert credentials and talking about the importance of your work. Even when accurate, that kind of talk is a red flag to most editors here, who are unfortunately constantly besieged by people who take the same tone and happen to be actual cranks - and as it is nearly impossible for anyone here to verify what you say about the NIH, etc., or even to know that you are the real G.F. Clark, more people will be turned off by the tone than impressed by the credentials. Just as it would be inadvisable to walk into a scientific conference carrying your presentation on a Frank Chu-style sign, it is a good idea to avoid consistently responding to criticisms of article content, even undiplomatic ones, by brandishing credentials and talking about how your theory will revolutionize this and that. Everyone can edit Wikipedia, but nothing is immune from criticism no matter how well-regarded you are in your field. And, again, it really does not help matters when you don't demonstrate any familiarity with the procedures we've established here. ←Hob 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who is reading this passage, sorry, but I am a world class expert in this area of research. Some issues have been raised about the validity of my statements. Proof for NIH funding can be found by going to the NIH CRISP web site [1] and entering Clark, Gary under investigator name. Notability was also suggested to be a major issue. The Gordon Research Conferences are the oldest and most prestigious meetings on science and engineering in the world, and they represent the leading edge of scientific thinking. I gave a talk at a Gordon Conference last year in Ventura, CA with the following title: "The immune-reproductive nexus: the key to understanding many human pathologies?" This talk was centered around the eu-FEDS hypothesis that relates pathogenesis to the induction of tolerance to the developing eutherian. Evidence confirming this seminar can be found at [2]. This confirmation should invalidate any claims made suggesting that this hypothesis is not being accepted, or that it involves some "wild guess" by the village idiot or insane person.--Clarkgf 23:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know how better to explain it, but I'll try one more time: the prominence of Gary F. Clark, and the appropriateness of the specific text you've written on Wikipedia, are two entirely separate issues. When you submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal, you don't expect them to rubber-stamp anything you might say simply because of your prominence in the field, do you? No, they judge it according to their standards for content. Similarly here, except it's a different set of standards (and at the risk of being a broken record, I will ask again: have you read the Wikipedia guidelines?) - peer review here would be impossible because we don't have the expertise, so we focus on verifiability and notability, and publicizing potentially important new hypotheses is really not the purpose of this site. And, as I tried to explain above, there's virtually no way for anyone here to verify that you are the same person as Gary F. Clark (although I personally believe you are), so it's beside the point to say "Defer to me because of who I am". I appreciate the conference & NIH references - as they relate to the notability of the article subject, not you yourself - and it would've saved a good deal of trouble if you had provided them earlier, instead of expressing outrage that your statements about yourself had not put an immediate end to the argument. Asking for verification of claims is a standard practice here, not a hostile act. (And I must say that if this is the most skeptical and undiplomatic audience you've ever encountered, then most of the clinicians and researchers I've met would offend you beyond belief.)

And since you are concerned about people putting words in your mouth, please stop it with the "wild guess" and "village idiot" stuff. The only time I used "wild guess", or any phrase remotely like it, was in reference to a single passage in the SIV article, and I said that "out of context it's just a wild guess" - meaning that you had not included a sufficient explanation of why A would imply B rather than C, so that the reader might see the conclusion as arbitrary. I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this, since you have already ignored my many, many statements that I am not saying your hypothesis itself is wrong, but I would appreciate it if you would leave out the sarcastic jabs at straw men. ←Hob 17:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will cut out the sarcasm now. I know that this statement may be surprising, but the truth is that no one has ever directly maligned this hypothesis in a public forum. I think it is because first it is a hypothesis, and secondly, thoughtful answers were being provided to specific questions about the model. It is more difficult to be hostile when your points are being intelligently addressed. And for some scientists the hypothesis that pathological states would be coupled to this form of tolerance is extremely logical. I want clinicians who are now catching on to this model very rapidly to have access to a excellent definition via Wikipedia. AIDS and ovarian cancer groups are also catching on. The goal in the end should be to educate and also provide useful information for interested parties.--Clarkgf 17:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypothesis has not been "maligned" here; if you really can't distinguish between criticism of your professional work and criticism of the way you've written about it here on this collaborative website, then you certainly will find Wikipedia frustrating. And please do attempt to avoid hostility even if you feel provoked by unintelligent questions. I just re-read my original comment on eu-FEDS to see if I'd inadvertently said something really offensive, but it was fairly polite and I went out of my way to say I wasn't criticizing you personally or professionally but only commenting on the writing in these articles. You immediately responded with personal attacks. If this is really the most skeptical and undiplomatic audience you've ever seen, then the clinicians and scientists you've encountered must be very different from the ones I've enountered.

I would also caution against seeing this as your own personal forum for "educating" others about your work. I noticed your comment on Texas AIDS Blog [3] in which you brought up the subject of your hypothesis and told readers to look up eu-FEDS on Wikipedia. When other editors get involved with the article, it may change considerably or be merged into another page - keep in mind the official policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - so you might want to consider using a web hosting service to create your own page. ←Hob 19:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]