User talk:Keepcalmandcarryon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Message

Hi. I suggest you to read WP:WELCOME

— Keepcalmandcarryon 76.194.235.52 (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thus spake SPAthustra! I will leave this here as a pluperfect illustration of a SPA editor. -Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I also inform you that, AFAIK this edit of your [1] is a blanking of sourced data.

I invite you to please present your arguments for aforelinked edit at Talk:AIDS reappraisal. Maybe you have a point and there´s a good reason for that edit. Please: Explain yourself. Cheers. Randroide (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You deserve this barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Great job with AIDS denialism OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Do you happen to have any connection to this thread, and the poster there by the name of keepcalmandcarryon? MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to know, because your edits here are pretty clear to removing the POV that AIDS denialism is scientifically based. The poster above was a bit unclear. Maybe it was your intention. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the star, no i do not have any connection to denialist websites. Sorry if I am amateurish with my edits, just learning this.Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Partisan Vandalism

Please stop your vandalism of this article. You are clearly using it as retribution against me due to the AIDS Denialist dispute. I provided clear refs., to ALRA. The Kent Lib. article lists all three directors as 'Managers'.

If you persist in vandalising this article I will present the evidence to Wikipedia and request you be banned. Aimulti (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I have contributed to the recent edits of your autobiography not as retribution for anything, but because your agenda-driven activities at AIDS denialism prompted me to examine your other edits. This article (and your behavior in general) does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, in my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with me. Cheers, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Keepcalm,

I have provided a scan on the disscussion page and ref. regarding ALRA. It shows the second prospectus credits and shows Mark Hanau was Chairman. I will reference ALL other points ASAP. I removed a couple until I can provide references. My contributions to Wikipedia are better referenced than (the general Wiki standard) and almost none of my contributions has ever been edited for that reason. (Examples. The history of CND, Committee of 100) I have had it with trying to talk sense regarding 'AIDS'. You can all enjoy your smears and one sided comment to your hearts content. Best wishes.Aimulti (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Contributions often remain unedited for months or years. It's not necessarily evidence of good referencing. But I do agree that you seem to have made some well referenced contributions, for example on brothels. The best editing is generally done when you have some distance from your subject. And that is why Wikipedia discourages autobiography. Why not leave your contributions for someone else to write up? Surely you have some dag colleagues who could do it for you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I added content to this page but have been very careful to be objective and did not include anything that I could not reference (to some degree). Yes, I could have a friend make the edits, but what would be the difference? It would be dishonest but if that is how it is done here, why not?

I know you hate my views on AIDS but that is no reason to subject my contributions to a standard that no one could meet. Almost every article would be deleted if such a standard was applied. I feel I made valid points regarding the limitations of EM but clearly this is an emotional topic and the response was in keeping with that. As it is pointless to fight such a strongly held prejudice I will simply try it ignore it and write on subjects that can be debated in a rational manner. I hold no hard feelings to you but simply ask that you act in a fair and balanced way and do not use Wikipedia to engage in a vendetta. Very best wishes.Aimulti (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding ALRA ref. Actually a school prospectus (distributed in the tens of thousands) IS A PUBLISHED DOCUMENT. The brochure was produced by ALRA and distributed by the school (as with any school prospectus). In this regard I have met the Wikipedia standard as I am sure you will agree. Aimulti (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean you should write your own article and have someone else post it. That would be dishonest. But you could kindly ask someone to write about you. I don't see what the harm in that would be. They would have NPOV that you lack. As for the prospectus, whether it's acceptable as a source or not, being named as a Chairman in it doesn't equate with being the founder of the school. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A founder is a person who is at the very start of a project and plays a leading role in its inception. An Artistic Director is no more a founder than a Chairman of the Board. In this case Mark Hanau provided 100% of the start up capital. Aimulti (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Had to revert

I had to revert here, and your edits to the POV cruft were good, but you're trying to make feces smell like a good fine wine. Randroide has no support in his cruft, so I think you were inadvertently supporting his cruft by improving the edits. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I went along I realized that this is all covered elsewhere. Where did Randroide get "no consensus?" Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI

You need to be made aware of this discussion at ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice note at User talk:Aimulti. Kudos. Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeping busy

You're keeping busy, aren't you. Quite the walled garden of articles on AIDS denialism we've got here, eh? :) MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. A fascinating place by any account. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at Matthias Rath. I've been thinking about looking at how his research is presented in the article, but much of it is hard to verify, appearing in the Commonwealth Handbook or Italian veterinary journals, so I appreciate your work there. I'm curious about the Iranian team which "supported" his findings, especially as I can't seem to find their article on PubMed. It's a tricky article, since there is a signficant, even mainstream view which considers Rath to be a harmful quack. On the other hand, we have to be careful with sourcing and tone, both by virtue of our site policies and the notoriously litigious nature of the article subject. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Please let me know if I get carried away with sourcing and tone at any time. The Veterinaria Italiana article, IMHO, does not support Rath's team's statement about reduction of viral replication, since the assay involved does not distinguish between effects on virus itself and modulation of the immune system. I find the entire Vet Ital article to be curious. The supplement seems to work wonders for the birds at three days post-infection and -treatment (10 days of age), yet just four days later (the experimental end point), the treated birds seem to be as sick as (or sicker than) the untreated birds in several categories. More importantly, it appears that at 14 days, 19/20 (Control), 17/20 (infected), and 14/20 (infected, treated) birds are alive. No mention is made of what happened to the missing birds, nor do the authors speculate about the apparent doubling of mortality in treated birds. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Iranian article is an opinion article, not independent experimental confirmation. I moved the claim to talk since I'm not sure how to handle it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting about the birds. You'd think the reviewers might have caught on, no? But just goes to show that clinical research is all about choosing your endpoints and follow-up period. MastCell ^Talk 20:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Henry Bauer

Thanks a lot for warning me. Heh, you see, I actually had no idea of who this guy was until yesterday. I was updating a source on Homeopathy, when I saw that Society for Scientific Exploration was a red link. After doing that stub, I found that the editor-in-chief was also a red link, so I started his article too. (that reminds that I still have to start Scientific Exploration Society :P).

I haven't still arrived to the news reports, because I'm compiling evidence for his research. I have heard that there are some ugly disputes around the AIDS denialism article with high profile administrators involved, and drama being given away like candy. I peeked a bit at the article, but I haven't still read anything from the talk page.

What I don't understand is how the situation can become ugly. You mean that a possible AfD could become a battleground? Or maybe that the article can start being botched by POV warriors? Or maybe I can be accused of stuff due to improving this article? I'd rather know what are the dangers before I get into the middle of them. Send me an email if you'd rather not detail them on public.

Btw, I totally agree with you that some of the sources on the article are totally unbiased moderate leftist sources with no axe to grind :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Bauer probably meets the WP:PROF notability criteria by virtue of having headed Virginia Tech for some time. My practical experience of WP:PROF is that a significant portion of the AfD community feel that anyone reaching full-professor rank is notable, though I don't agree. Re: AIDS denialism, I don't really see "ugly disputes" there - more like occasionally a minor coordinated effort to insert AIDS-denialist material occurs and then peters out. Not aware of any high-profile admins involved. You couldn't mean me, could you? I'm officially a mid-level drone, unless I was promoted to Drama Magnet Admin without my knowledge... :) MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, MastCell, no, I was not referring to you. It seems that I'm confusing myself with other controversies. I have been involved on so many controversial articles lately that I'm starting to get them mixed :D I'll later read the talk page of AIDS denialism to see what's cooking there.

I'm going to un-prod the article once I make a few more improvements, I want to make sure that I nail it before un-prodding. Btw, Keepcalm, can you point me to a few news articles with those controversies, or at least give a few hints on where to search for them? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Btw, keepcalm, if you want the information on those controversies to make it into the article, then you will have to find very good sources for them, per the WP:BLP policy about negative statements on living persons' articles --Enric Naval (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the prod and also a notability tag that was already there. I left a message on the talk page of the article explaining the reasons. Feel free to bring it to WP:AFD. Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved the article to Henry H. Bauer --Enric Naval (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Great job on Henry H. Bauer! If I had known he was a member of the prestigious National Association of Scholars, I never would have questioned his notability, much less prodded the article. By the way, if you customarily spend an entire day adding fascinating details to articles of people you just heard about yesterday, I would very much like to direct you to my own bio! Thanks again, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, casually, I was coming to your talk page to chastise you for removing his membership to that association [2], which I found very weird because their article supports the affirmative action link :D

Heh, I still need to spend more time looking for stuff. This is a long term thing.

Also, man, be more careful. Here you remove the Time magazine source that I had just added because of incorrect quoting, but 15 minutes you have forgotten about it, and you prod the article here saying that it has only two sources from Bauer's website and a college newsleter.

--Enric Naval (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enric. You might want to "spend more time looking for stuff" before you "chastise" other editors for inconsistency. You would then realize that I didn't remove the NAS membership, I simply moved it out of the lead and into a relevant section, explaining my actions. And as for two versus three sources mentioned in my prod, I referred only to the ones present at the time, not all sources that had ever been used for the article. Would you have preferred that I bring up your blatant plagiarism of the Time article? I suspect not, and I didn't, because I assumed in good faith that you didn't know it's not appropriate to cut and paste into Wikipedia.

By the way, the "man" appellation doesn't work for me. Try not to make gender assumptions with people you don't know. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: why did you call the behavior of others "condescendent" (condescending) here when you make condescending edit summaries like "improve that memory" on my talk? There's no reason to make this personal. Aren't we both just trying to improve Wikipedia? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I had postponed reading the controversy section until I had some time to check the sources, and I hadn't noticed that you had mentioned the association there :( I'm very sorry for that. Next time I'll double-check that you dind't re-add the information somewhere else on the article. Again, sorry for that

Also, I apologize for my badly-worded comments on your memory or lack of thereof, which were caused by me having spent a lot of time trying to source the university courses usage on a neutral way and being annoyed that they were removed for OR. I should have gone away from the computer and answered the next day instead of answering inmediately.

I assure you that I wasn't accusing you of bad faith, it was more a suggestion that you were on good faith removing sources for a good reason and then reviewing the article and in good faith tagging a sentence without remembering that you had removed the source on technical grounds. Basically, now I look back at it, I was on the verge of making a personal attack on you. (I was even going to suggest the intake of ginseng, which in my country is commercialized to students as a remedy to improve memory for exam time. Luckily I didn't do so, because it turns out that the ginseng article on wikipedia only mentions its use to increase sexual potence!).

As for the prod, actually, I would have preferred that you mentioned that there was also a Time magazine source, since that helps to establish some notability. Had I done the prod, I would have used a neutral wording like: "there was also a Time magazine source that mentions him, but I removed it because it was not being used correctly".

Sorry for the gender implication. I'll address you by the correct gender from now on.

I'll go now to the article talk page to address the content issues, and I'll refrain myself from making more assumptions on you. My bad. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll also answer now on my talk page the other issues you mention there --Enric Naval (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently just trying to report the research he has done, so the article might be unbalanced because it lacks mainstream analysis on his work. For how his research is a lie, there should be extensive literature saying this, but I don't know where to look at. Since you can probably find sources way easier than me, can you add those sources on the article and explain how his views have been shunned by other scientists to balance the article? (for example, I would have never found by myself all those AP articles) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Enric, I'll be happy to do that if you can give me just a bit of time. Until then, please, let's not give undue weight to the fringe viewpoint. Thanks! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, don't worry, I will paying attention to other articles for at least a pair of days --Enric Naval (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I finally got around to reading Bauer's article on lazy students, and I found that the article was describing it incorrectly. I left an explanation on the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation

Just a heads-up that your suspicions were correct. MastCell ^Talk 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Duesberg Hypothesis

Did you not notice that the sentence that was changed was OR itself, and did not represent the attributed source? Please do a little digging before nagging people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a random note...

I just saw a comment you left on a talkpage somewhere, and had to comment: I love your username. It's possibly the best advice that could be given to anyone editing Wikipedia. We even have a whole guideline about it: WP:CALM. (See also: WP:TEA.)

There are far too many editors, many of them long-term ones, who sadly disregard that advice. Terraxos (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Email

Would you consider enabling your Wikipedia email? MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Color me quite embarrassed; I don't know how to do that. I will check it out and do it ASAP. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look under "My preferences", at the top right of your screen. Should be self-apparent from there. Be aware that when sending emails, the recipient will see the email address from which you sent it. Receiving email does not entail any such exposure. MastCell ^Talk 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That was easy. I will monitor my email, but I must admit I am somewhat uneasy about exposing my email what with the recent "outing", right or not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Understandably. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Shams

Thanks for working on sham peer review. It's been on my list for awhile to clean it up, but everytime I looked at it, the combination of prolixity and awfulness made me too depressed to tackle it. Keep up the good work. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not being too bold there, but the article was truly atrocious. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that when an article is both overlong and crappy, the only effective approach is to trim it radically and restore items only as sourcing and policy compliance can be demonstrated. Course, that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthias Rath

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For tireless work against AIDS denialism and unproven therapies, I hereby award this Barnstar. Djma12 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Bauer

Thanks for your note. I do think that you're not applying the secondary sources principle correctly. As a lawyer, I can tell you that the best evidence of what somebody said is what he said, not what some third party said he said. (That's called hearsay.) Moreover, one could take your secondary sources principle to an infinite, absurd, regress: Why quote aids-truth talking about Bauer when we could quote some other source quoting aids-truth quoting about Bauer? And why quote that source when we could quote yet another source quoting the third source quoting the second source quoting Bauer? Etc.

Note also that I kept in my edit (and attributed to aids-truth) what I think is the important claim that aids-truth makes regarding the timing of Bauer's retraction.

Finally, you should know that I have no brief here regarding Bauer himself. I never even heard his name until I came across the wiki article while I was looking for something else. I have no particular wish to defend the man or to "tilt" the article one way or the other. I was struck, though, by the indirect way that the article reported what should have just been quoted directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P.D. (talk • contribs) 13:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you really are missing the point. Bauer's web site IS a secondary source in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term. That is to say, I'm not relying on my own knowledge or mere "common knowledge." Rather, I'm citing a secondary source -- Bauer's website. The question is whether his website is a better source for his views than somebody else's website. Surely, it has to be. (It would not be a better source, of course, for the truth of his views, or the timing of his views, or the sincerity of his expressed views, anything like that. But it is, by definition, the best source for quoting his expressed views. Let me give you another example: Say that a wikipedia article was discussing a speech by the President. What would be a better source for the words (not the truth of the speech, or its sincerity, or anything else, just the words of the speech), the official transcript or somebody's blog? Surely, the official transcript would be the better "secondary source." Or say that an article on a novelist wants to quote a short passage from the novel. What's the better source: the novel itself, or the Cliff Notes website? Surely, the novel itself is the better "secondary source." To repeat: the "secondary source" policy insists that I not write or edit an entry based merely on my own personal knowledge, or on unsourced "common knowledge." But it does not require that I avoid citing a person's own words as the best source for the content of that person's own words. P.D. (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I did, however, change "retracted his views" to "claimed to have retracted his views" per your reasonable argument that the word "retracted," by itself, is an editorial comment. This strikes me as a close question, and I'm reluctant to stuff wikipedia with an excess of weasel terms, but it is a fair change to make.P.D. (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the relevant policies. Bauer's blog is most definitely a primary source. And whether you agree with the spirit of it or not, Wikipedia would, indeed, prefer a secondary source to a novel or a speech transcript. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the relevant policy, found at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_about_themselves:

Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;

2. it is not contentious;

3. it is not unduly self-serving;

4. it does not involve claims about third parties;

5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;

7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

My changes clearly qualify as citing a self-published source for information about itself. Moreover, it is not subject to any of the 7 listed cautions. (To the extent that the citation is arguably self-serving, that has been cured by citing the aids-truth claim that Bauer only published his retraction after his views were publicized.)P.D. (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Other Side of AIDS

With respects, I am going to chime in here... the WP:NF guideine states

The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

3. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

4. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[3]

5. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

6. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

7. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[4]

8. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[5]

9. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

I wish to stress that this guideline states "following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist". The guideline does not state that these attributes must exist to be notable, only that IF they do, then reliable sources are liley to be found... as an encouragement for editors to be diligent in theeir searches. It is an error to read that section as a mandate or limitation. Further, It does not say one must discount "minor" reviews. He may have been getting heated, but User:Schuym1 is correct. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• So it passes WP:NF, WP:Notability, WP:RS, and WP:Verifiability. 03:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Stay off my talk page. Schuym1 (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A valid point and I apologize for any misunderstanding. I was trying to quell the growing brusqueness from our friend by offering WP:ATA as a possible reason for to be calmer... as there is little recourse to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT other than to make what good points one may and leave the matter in the hands of other editors... as guidelines are guidelines and essays are essays. The bottom line will be WP:V and consensus and whatever the closing Admin does. Toward that end, I have just added a slew or reviews... some quite extensive, and some terse, that together address long term notability of the film... from as early as 2002 to 2008. I hope we're okay? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, quite OK. I don't see why things got so personal with Schuym1. You and I seem to have very different ideas of what constitutes a reliable source (in my opinion, blogs, personal websites, and commercial sites are not usually reliable sources), but I don't see any reason to get steamed over our differences, and I appreciate your approach. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Interesting way to make a point. Surely you could not have had time in the 20 seconds they were there to determine that they were all bad reviews? And please, could you point me to the list of "nationally recognized" film critics that you use to make that call. Like User:Schuym1, I will now leave that AfD... and trust other editors or Admins to make a judgement call on your reversion of my contribution to that article. Thank you for your time. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not an issue of "bad reviews"; it's an issue of reliable sources. I did in fact have the time in the ten minutes between your edit and my deletion to notice that most of your additions were blogs, personal sites, and commercial sites. With few exceptions, these are not reliable sources. When you see an address that ends in ".wordpress.com", you are looking at a blog. Filmcritic.com is the site of Christopher Null (type it into the wikipedia search, and you will be re-directed to Null). The iol "review" was by an anonymous online user. And so on. As far as I can tell, these are not my opinions, and not subjective in the way my view of nationally known film critics is admittedly subjective. If you feel that some or all of the removed items are reliable sources, you are free to defend them and place them back in ... or to take up the issue at the RS noticeboard. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I shan't, but thank you for the suggestion. I will trust that other editors look at the diff themselves. in your batch reversion, you removed an in depth interview of the filmmaker, a GBLT film festival review, the filmcritic review written by somebody NOT Christopher Null, the IOFilm review by "Rebort" who has many reviews to his credit (annonymous is not a crime... look at Wiki and the thousands of usernames). Perhaps all my reviews were not of the (non-profit) Washington Post caliber, but they were neutral and verifiable. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, these sources exist. No, anonymity is no crime. But no, these sources are not reliable by Wikipedia standards, just as IMDB is unacceptable, and just as Wikipedia does not reference itself. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Thank you for "these sources exist". I appreciate that minor concession. But with the reviews deleted from the article.... as were your own improvements on the related article AIDS Inc.... it will be up to a neutral Admin to check the DIFF and make a call. Discussions with you has been helpful and interesting. Thank you. I will say in leaving you though, that IMDB is acceptable sometimes... but only as a "tertiary source" of simple facts such as actor's filmology or a film's cast list, if supported by RS... (but naturally not of trivia or biographies or unverifiable informations). Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad

Thanks for fixing The Other Side of AIDS!! I misread the article and thought that the premiere and the AIDS Walk were the same day. I'm glad you caught that!! miniluv (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

RJ: immunologists

Please read WP:V before tag warring. Ottre 06:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice the rejoinder. And yes, your (?) wording is likely to be challenged. Unfortunately. Ottre 22:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to challenge my (?) wording by providing sources for your implication that immunologists are alone in their opposition to AIDS denialism. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're on the same level here. I'm saying you answered your own question, hence the rejoinder. My response only implied that you are creating an argument, a potential tag war, when there is none to be had:

• the use of the term 'immunologists' can not be challenged, yet you inserted 'scientific consensus' over 'rejected by the community'
• we agree that immunology is not a 'narrow' field, deceptive edit summary on your part
• we are conveying the same information to the reader, regardless of whether or not that needs refactoring

Hope we can avoid any further dispute. Ottre 00:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest moving this and related discussions to the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 05:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My head hurts

A propos of recent discussions, I recently re-read this gem. Such concentrated and distilled ignorance makes my head hurt.

The abuse of the 2006 Lancet study (PMID 16890831) is particularly egregious. Granted, the Lancet paper wasn't particularly well-written, but Bauer obviously failed to understand even its most basic components. He cites the article to claim that patients treated with HAART "have earlier onsets of AIDS-type events" and "a signficant increase in combined AIDS/AIDS-related deaths", presumably in comparison to patients not treated with HAART. But all of the patients in the study received HAART - the analysis looked at trends over time among HAART-treated patients - making Bauer's conclusion either ignorant or intentionally deceptive.

"Why no vaccine?" is also a fascinating argument. Apparently, the failure to develop an effective vaccine within 25 years of the discovery of an entirely novel infectious agent is proof of the non-existence of the agent. By this rationale, we have a just a few more years to find a vaccine for hepatitis C virus, or else we'll be forced to conclude that it doesn't exist and that it's just a hoax perpetrated by greedy doctors and drug companies. Most hemorrhagic fever viruses are obviously non-existent by this rationale as well. If Ebola was real, we'd have a vaccine by now. I should probably just stop there. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Like Duesberg's, Bauer's abuse of the literature seems (to me) to be intentional. On the other hand, I recognise that denial of the psychological kind can be powerful, and may allow even otherwise intelligent people to ignore facts and logic. Sad, though, that this type of "reasoning" is presented alongside vociferous denouncements of science. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well. I'm just in it for the fan mail... MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, there are only so many people you can be simultaneously! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The most hurtful aspect was subsequently being downgraded from a "paid biostitute" to an unpaid one. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Plwha

It may be possible to have the website plwha.com blacklisted from Wikipedia, so that any attempts to add it will be blocked automatically. Otherwise, a range block might be possible as well. Bring it up at wp:ANI, and give me a link to any threads you start. NJGW (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You can go to the spam blacklist here, and ask that the site be blacklisted. That makes it impossible for anyone to add links to it, which is often the best solution. They'll want some diffs as evidence that the link is being spammed, but that should be straightforward. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I made the case at the Spam blacklist. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't mean to plagerise, I must've saved it before paraphrasing. I only own this account and the only reason why I'm editing is for a class at George Mason University so everyone under -GMU is another student. I will re edit that bit that you commented on as soon as possible. Today is suppoed to be the final day of editing for our class, which is a Biology 494 course headed by Dr Baranova if you would like to check. Sory for the problems, I was just rushing to get as much edited to ensure a good grad. If you let me know whta I left word for word then I will gladly go back and change it. Thanks for informing me and sorry for the late reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naj-GMU (talk • contribs) 21:39, 1 December 2008 (comment moved from user page --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC))

A single scientific publication

Somehwere, a bridge is missing its troll. MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I like your Qoheleth reading. The futility of it all... One place we're told there is no remembrance, but elsewhere admonished, "Lo tishkach". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm not a religious person, but I've always had a soft spot for Ecclesiastes. It's refreshingly cynical, fatalistic, and modern. The take-home message, which you allude to: "Do the right thing, but don't expect it to make any difference." Fo' shizzle. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Carol Browner material removal

Please see Talk:Carol Browner/Archives/2013#EPA discrimination material for my thoughts on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Looking back over the whole sequence at Talk:Carol Browner, you are right that my tone has been problematic. I think your initial edit summary statement that my "edits seem to stretch or selectively interpret sources" (which I honestly don't think I did) got me into an antagonistic posture that I was unable to escape. And while I did genuinely think that the matter would be better resolved if you took the lead in putting in the material in question, the phrasing I used left a whole lot to be desired. Anyway, you have my apologies on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this, and sorry for any problems I caused. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There were problems all around alas, and I took myself off that article too. Your concern on BLP grounds put you on the side of the angels, at least as far is Jimbo is concerned. Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey is an interesting read about ideas in this area, if you haven't seen it already. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ears burning

In case your ears fail to burn whenever someone slags you on a noticeboard, you're currently being discussed at WP:AN/I#massive edits in 2 days. Just a courtesy notification. MastCell ^Talk 23:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, just noticed it and responded. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of AIDS

Thanks for your message. I would normally make such a move boldly without asking first, but given the number of editors who have been on this page I thought it best to ask first.

It was your edit today that popped this up on my watchlist and reminded me to do the move. Regarding that edit, do you have any source that would support changing "HIV-1 is thought to have originated in populations of wild chimpanzees" to "HIV-1 is generally accepted to have originated in populations of wild chimpanzees"? "Is thought to" sounds rather weaselly. To change this would need a source in a meta-study that synthesises research rather than to specific research papers claiming the link, but if it could be sourced properly I think this would be a useful change to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I will try to find similar language in a review. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

Your stomach (and User:Mastcell's) is stronger than mine. Do these things ever calm down? --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, but I will keep on. Actually, I have no idea what possessed me to look at the aspartame article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

NPA

Why is stating that IMO someone is not NPOV a PA? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-avowed AIDS denialist?

Say, where do you get the idea that I'm (a) an AIDS denialist and that (b) I have said myself that I'm an AIDS denialist (i.e. "self-avowed")? The fact that I have problems with the neutrality (and general quality) of the AIDS denialist article doesn't mean I take sides in the debate. And even if I were an AIDS denialist (which I'm not), most of the edits I recently did in that article were neutral, surely. When judging whether edits are acceptable, judge the edits, not the person making them. -- leuce (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I explained my edits here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:AIDS_denialism#One and if you'd be so kind to reply and tell me why you disagree with them. -- leuce (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 3RR

I'm aware of the 3RR rule which is why I didn't simply undo all of your reverts, but first attempted to discuss it. In cases where I have consulted the originally cited references to verify the information from the article, and found the article's content to be an inaccurate reflection of those sources, you simply reverted my edits as well. My edits are neutral. Yours are not. For you, the Wikipedia is a soap box where you can carry on a fight with people you disagree with. -- leuce (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I try to take a look round those articles every now and then, learn who the usual suspects are. Nevard (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reported you for editwarring

I also see that you should probably have warned me regarding 3RR, but thanks for the blindside. I opened the discussion topic specifically so we can work these differences out, I do hope that you will see the value of reasoned debate for the future.

The incident is reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Keepcalmandcarryon_reported_by_unomi_.28Result:_.29 Unomi (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that your report is completely bogus, since Keepcalm is at 1RR. The reporting feature is not meant for discussion...it is for serious and obvious complaints of 3RR, and you are misusing it. You should review WP:3RR to avoid embarrassing yourself any further. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

... for 'tis sport to see the edit-warrior hoist with his own petard... to paraphrase Francis Bacon. MastCell ^Talk 06:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Please see this sockpuppet investigation. Immortale (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Was this alleged puppetry conspiracy also funded by the carry-on luggage company? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks a bit like stalking to me. Maybe we should ask for this users account to be indef'd. Verbal chat 07:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your actions on Orthomolecular psychiatry and Orthomolecular medicine

Hello, Keepcalmandcarryon. 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. Artw (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maggiore

I just want to be sure we are "as Caesar's wife" in the matter - beyond reproach. I think the blog that holds the death certificate needs to revise its language, as well. And I think the medical examiner ought to use his power to revise the death certificate, but somehow I don't think that'll happen.... - Nunh-huh 22:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Aspartame

My answer on my talk. Bests --Calgaco (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

AZT

Hey - I was sucked into trying to explain the basic pharmacology of AZT at Talk:Zidovudine. Since I'm not a pharmacologist, and I was playing to a rather unsophisticated audience, I was wondering if you could review my post to see if I've misstated anything. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert gallo

Sorry think you got the wrong editor/ip address. Havn't got a clue who he is or what you are talking about. Please check I am not impressed. Anon ip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.118.162 (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Verbal chat 10:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ingenious

Say what you will about AIDS denialists, but they are quite good at coming up with ingenious schemes to promote their viewpoint... can you imagine? "Here is a check for $200, but I stipulate that it must be used to promote the view that HIV is harmless." I'm actually a little afraid of what the Foundation would say to such a request... :) MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazing: that denialists, who so often rail against money as the root of all that's evil in science, propose purpose-driven donations as a means to ensure involvement of disinterested editors. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Semmelweis Society

Thought you would like to know that your name has been mentioned at WP:EAR#Semmelweis Society. SpinningSpark 10:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please revisit HIV/AIDS in South Africa

Hello. I've started making some more edits in HIV/AIDS in South Africa. I'm expanding the history section and I think someone has to look at the denialist section as well (which is not really my interest, although it may be nice to have a chronology there). Anyway, I'm particularly interested in your views about what demographics might be useful to add to the page -- the current demographics section contains some vague or random statistics, and only one "comprehensive" item (namely HIV infection in pregnant women). What do you think? I look forward to your responses in the Talk page. -- leuce (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Aids denialism source

Hi,

In this edit you restore this url - this shows up as a dead link for me, and the information is already verified with Kalicham. I'm inclined to remove the link again, since I don't see the extra value - but I'm possibly missing something. Is the link live for you?

The DMOZ has a page for AIDS "dissidents", but not for AIDS denialism (i.e. an "AIDS dissidents are morons" page). Curious. I won't be including it in the page.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the page has moved here: http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I'll update the page if KCACO hasn't already. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I got it. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that and was jealous. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like my work here is done, wink. Thanks, you two. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you, need advice

Thank you about your opinion. But I want to ask a question. About my editing at American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. My opinion that: Vision, mission, or purpose of organization is a fact and uneditable text. It's standarized. Like we rewrite an act or rules, we cannot change it with our own words. So, what do you think? Thanks =) Haurissa (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to say that I disagree to put the paragraph: "Scientists studying aging reject the claims of A4M as unjustified and unscientific, and accuse the group of using misleading marketing to sell expensive and untested products. The A4M's founders and merchants who promote products through the organization have been involved in several legal and professional disputes." in the lead. There are several ambigous context.

First, scientist. Who? All aging medicine scientist? I think that is unfair. What do you think? And I think to put the criticism in lead that's not fit enough. I think it's better to put the criticsm in its section. Regards, Haurissa (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the article on the talk page. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Transmission Rates Revision

You recently reverted my modification of the transmission rates table in the HIV article as "vandalism." However, it was not at all. Instead, it was an update to reflect the source of the dubiously determined data. If I may quote the source article itself:

"Parameter estimates were identified through an extensive literature review. When published estimates were not available, we used best-guess estimates."

"Although there are few data on the relative risks associated with fellatio (oral-penile contact), most investigators suggest that it is safer than vaginal sex. We assumed that insertive fellatio was 10 times less risky than insertive vaginal sex and that receptive fellatio was 10 times less risky than receptive vaginal sex, per act (Table 1)."

From reference 32, Varghese et al 2002. As you can see, the rate cites in the table is essentially drawn out of thin air - "best-guess estimate" is a charitable description, but it is the one used in the paper. Frankly, I might be in favor of removing those two values entirely, but if nothing else their origin should be made clear.

I will add a blurb about this on the talk page for HIV.Twistinside6 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You altered a table with a reliable source with your own sarcastic commentary. At the worst, it's vandalism; at the best, original research. Either way, inappropriate for Wikipedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not sarcastic commentary, it is a direct quote from the source article. How can that be original research? Engage me on the talk page instead of a revert war.Twistinside6 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I will revert alterations designed to cast doubt on this table and its source. You've made your point, and you've shown your POV with comments like "charitable description"; please move on. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Life extension

Goodd work you are doing there. I urge you to continue. It's time that article were cleaned up, and I'm glad youve taken it on. DGG (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG; I hope to put more effort into these articles soon. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your AIV report

Concerning your recent report at WP:AIV, user:Kurt Shaped Box added the spammed link plwha.us to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist which should prevent further spamming. However, if you notice that the problem persists in some way, please let me know and I'll see what else can be done. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Life extension

I agree that Life extension needed to be cleaned up (it needs more still). You'll need to watch it closely to defend your changes (especially the removals). Otherwise, certain editors who check the article periodically may revert most if not all of your hard work.

I especially like how you split up the current and proposed strategies.

I've moved the article back to its original title per WP:COMMONNAME, and I touched up some grammar toward the top of the article. I also placed some citation tags.

Keep up the good work. I'll read the rest of it when I find the time.

In the meantime, it's back to WP:OOK!

The Transhumanist    21:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I've added the article back into my watchlist, to keep a look out for reversions of your improvements.

Thank you...I appreciate your help. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

Hey - I just wanted to let you know that I restored the comments from YourHumanRights (talk · contribs). Obviously, I agree that they're problematic in terms of WP:TALK, but he's a new editor whom I directed to the talk page in lieu of edit-warring, and I think we can start by trying to educate him about Wikipedia - explain the talk page guidelines, explain that this isn't a webforum or free-for-all, explain WP:WEIGHT, and so forth. Granted, given the inflammatory rhetoric we're starting with, it may not be possible, but I thought it might be best to at least give it a shot. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm already regretting it. :) MastCell ^Talk 15:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Compound inaccuracies

"National Cancer Institute has approved many treatments for cancer and to this day not one has ever completly cured anyone." The problem with this place is that it makes inescapably clear that ignorance is an infinitely renewable resource, while patience is not. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gary Null

Please explain to me how my changes do not represent a neutral point of view. My changes are all referenced, and do not represent any point of view - just facts. For example, Gary Null's views are supported by leading scientists. This is a fact that is easily proven. Gary Null has made documentaries that have screened at film festivals. This is also easily proven.

It would seem to me that leaving out information that supports someone's credibility while stuffing an article with information that undermines their credibility is the non-neutral thing to do. I could have deleted all of the statements referring to his quackery, but unlike you, I do not believe in censorship, only in providing facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hospodar (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Gallo

Please tell me how you determine what is a valid source and what is not a valid source? Is a valid source one that supports your opinions, and a non-valid source one that does not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Hospodar (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A valid source is one that satisfies WP:RS. Standards are relatively higher for some general article categories, such as biographies and articles dealing with science/medicine. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

re suit

I read your notice on the lawsuit against Wikipedia. I'm no expert on this, but the 4A people should have a pretty good idea that they can't effectively sue Wikipedia. The liability for libel, as I understand it, according to internet libel law, is that it is the poster that is responsible, not the website. In short - they are being pretty aggressive - maybe just to get some publicity - and I wouldn't let out any personal details on this site. But you'll be ok. Smallbones (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...looks as if I should have stayed on vacation! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten and expanded this article citing reliable sources. If I can help further please don't hesitate to get in touch. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Threats

I have noticed that you have threatened me for commenting on the Christine Maggiore talk page. You have no grounds for such a threat, I was merely correcting someone's ignorant statement. From the San Francisco AIDS foundation's website:

Invasive cervical cancer was added as an AIDS-defining illness in 1993, following pressure from activists who felt the old definition was not sufficiently inclusive of HIV positive women. Nevertheless, invasive cervical cancer is not common among HIV positive women in the HAART era. Researchers [have] concluded that HIV positive women have a low risk for invasive cervical cancer that is "statistically indistinguishable from that in HIV seronegative women and similar to that reported among age- and race-matched women in the general population."

Your threats are absurd and unfounded, and only serve to make you look like a bully and a censor. Mister Hospodar (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No threats were made. I merely warned you to follow WP:TALK. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing AIDS denialism or your opinions on HPV and HIV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but this is probably as good as any a venue to correct obvious ignorance. Mister Hospodar, please re-read the quote you cite more carefully. Note that it says: "Invasive cervical cancer is not common among HIV positive women in the HAART era" (emphasis mine). In other words, it's the availability of effective antiretroviral therapy that has reduced the risk of cervical cancer in HIV-positive women down to the background level. Since Christine Maggiore did not take antiretroviral therapy, your quote is not relevant to her particular situation, as a moderately thoughtful reading of it should have made clear. Furthermore, the reduction in cervical cancer risk with HAART is additional evidence of the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy, and thus indirect proof of the role of HIV in AIDS. Thank you for citing material which debunks your own argument; saves me some trouble. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rian Malan edit

Hello, just for your information: I did some substantial editing on Rian Malan; I see that you are among the main contributors/correctors. I have to admit that I forgot at times to state what changes I had made. Am hoping the article will climb the quality scale; if you see anything critical, let me know.SkaraB 17:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

David Horrobin edit

Hi. I notice that you have made some substantial edits on the David Horrobin page. I am sure that you are aware that he was a controversial figure. The previous version had been arrived at by a process of negotiation between the various viewpoints. Would you would like to comment on why you feel that your edited version is more balanced? Thanks. Beechnut (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalm, your recent sequence of edits on the David Horrobin page have been largely negative. Positive aspects of his life have generally been presented by yourself in the most negative possible light. This kind of editorialising for what almost appears pursuant to an agenda (perhaps against what you consider to be his views concerning nutritional medicine) is disbalanced and inappropriate in context of encyclopedic content. Almost all editing to restore balance by myself or any other editor has been undone, and succeeded by what appear greater efforts to undermine the subject's reputation. An example would be your repeated removals of the fact of his being very well known for research contributions in the field of eicosanoids. A Google search for "horrobin" and "eicosanoids" results in over 6500 hits, while a search for horrbin +"snake oil salesman" results in only 440. Yet you have implacably insisted that this phrase be included in the article's lead, while the reference to eicosanoids, in which area of research Horrobin published hundreds of highly-cited papers, is relentlessly removed, despite its being added by one, and defended by another editor, and its being obviously both true and appropriate. Please do not attempt to own the subject, and please respect WP:NPOV. However you may consider that I have not been so, it seems clear to me that you are not balanced in your approach to this individual, but are sparing no effort to make the article as negative as is possible. The bulk of the entry is now wholly negative. While you may have considered the previous version excessively positive, the one you now offer is very, really excessively negative. Noncarborundum77 (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re. Wolf Szmuness

Hi, thanks for getting in touch. Glad to see you improved it, particularly the lead. Nice work. Nevard (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ben Becker

You're kidding, right? MastCell ^Talk 03:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The lizard people do not pay me to kid around. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Our article says that the lizard people feed on fear, ignorance, and negative emotion. If that's the case, why haven't they descended en masse on Wikipedia, starting with WP:AN/I and WP:RFARB? Unless... oh my God. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic water treatment Dispute

Keepcalmandcarryon appears to be convinced this is sudoscience. It may be, but like cold fusion something is going on, because there is still research into it, notably in Japan. I have placed a dispute label on this article because my substantrial article after review of earlier edits was reverted or grossly simplified with no explaination on the edit label or the talk page Timpo (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversions were performed due to original research, synthesis and unencyclopaedic additions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

HIV Soapbox?

Keepcalmandcarryon, regarding your insinuation that I turned the talk page into a soapbox, I must disagree with you. My edits, which were scientifically accurate and unbiased, were reverted, and I was asked for my thoughts as to why they should be included. I did just that. This is not an abuse, and I am unsure how you could categorize my argument for inclusion of my edits as such. Please refrain from threatening me, as well as others, in the future. Neuromancer (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

HIV Copyright Violation?

Keepcalmandcarryon, how was what I included a copyright violation? Neuromancer (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem?

Have you got a problem with me personally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 09:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

RE

First and foremost... I am glad that your opinion is that I have fringe opinions. That however, is your opinion. For example, when someone proposes that a set of images be included in an article, I question whether the images are relevant to that article. The article in questions being HIV, requires technical knowledge and discussion, therefore, and in a completely unbiased fashion, presented my concerns regarding the inclusion of those images. If you feel that I have copied bulk amounts of text without citing their sources... then all I can offer are my sincerest apologies. I will concede that I may have neglected to include a reference, or quotation marks. If that is the case, it was an unintentional oversight on my part, and I will work diligently in the future to assure that it does not happen again.

As far as my "connection" to any of the articles I have been contributing to, I can assure you I have no direct connection at all. I do however have a passion for Ballroom Dancing, and I feel that there is very little information regarding the topic on the Wiki. I plan on adding articles about a number of Ballroom Topics, as well as the studios that teach them. I have a great deal of knowledge regarding the subject, as I see from your recent edits, that you do not. For example, a studio, independent or franchise, relies on competitions for its reputability in the Ballroom Community. Studios travel across the country, and even outside of it for competitions. To take the standing of a studio which earned "Top Studio" "Top Bronze" & "Top Newcomer" is effectually removing the point of having the article in the first place. In future, do not edit what you have no understanding of. This is not a matter of differing opinions such as the HIV article. This is a matter of a topic you apparently know nothing about, and your edits are detracting from the information needed to fully comprehend the topic.

However, I will be sure to peruse EVERY edit to EVERY article you have contributed to, just on the off chance you have somehow detracted from those articles as well. I would not be a diligent editor if I did not do for you what you have done for me. Neuromancer (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock accusations

Enough of these already, go and get a check if you want, it won't show anything. You however do misrepresent sources, you misquote subjects, you use partial truths and distortions, all of which is permanently visible in hyou contributions record. You are the one damaging Wikipedia but seem to think that sticking the tail on the other guy don't make you the devil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.142.2 (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatcat Ballroom & Dance Company

You might want to refactor your !vote after the relist to comment. I am sure the closer will weigh the argument the same either way, but for the sake of appearances, yes? - 2/0 (cont.) 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. I wasn't thinking when I voted, and have refactored. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Kepcalm, I would appreciate it if you would keep your personal attacks to a minimum. I do not appreciate it. I also do not appreciate your canvassing or attempts to have me removed from Wikipedia. While I will admit, I made a poor first impression, particularly with your informal HIV cabal, I believe that my behaviors are now conforming to the guidelines of WP. The basic tenants of Wikipedia seem to be "Be Bold," "Good Faith" and "IAR." Which I have certainly done! When there have been warnings and reprimands, I have reappraised my actions, and attempted to bring them inline with additional policies as they have been brought to my attention. For you to continue to try to personally attack me is inappropriate and immature, not to mention in violation of the good faith tenant. Neuromancer (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer

You commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer, a thread which has now led to proposals that the user in question be topic banned or site banned, or that review of the issue be put aside while Neuromancer seeks a mentor. Your further input to that discussion would be welcome. Sorry for notifying you about a thread to which you just replied, but I am seeking input from everyone who has commented at that thread, which will hopefully generate new responses soon. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Understanding MEDRS

Keep calm, and understand that MEDRS DOES allow primary sources -- of course! Look at the majority of the citations in scientific or medical wikipedia articles. By the time a review or a book is written, how long would we wait? "In general, medical information in Wikipedia articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to an article."

Most would agree that 3 published, peer-reviewed clinical Phase 2 trials on PubMed alone, and another 10 or so on other scientific research servers, warrants mention on wikipedia, especially when the topic is as serious as tuberculosis and AIDS, which combination kills more people than heart attacks.

Don't call published research spam. Inappropriate comment you made -- it should be retracted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitesimus (talk • contribs) 02:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Insertion into main article space for AIDS or tuberculosis of information on any of the uncounted drugs that have made it to Phase II trials is likely to qualify as spam, especially when information on only one drug is added, and when a single editor has edit-warred to add that same drug to many different articles. Wikipedia is not advertising. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

People who delete writings without grounds are the reason that many people avoid Wikipedia - agreed?

Deleting an entire entry on the grounds that something doesn't "appear" to support a conclusion is a wrong approach that we shouldn't encourage, much like vandalism, don't you think so? If you know how to read science, please do so and let people know why you don't agree that (a) dapsone is anti-inflammatory, or (b) that it blocks MPO, or (c) that it is in testing against Alzheimer disease, and stroke, or (d) something intelligent, based on peer reviewed evidence. Thanks in advance for changing your ways. --Infinitesimus (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Small edits: Title changed by original writer to be less antagonistic to a prolific contributor, Mr. Keepcalmandcarryon. Apologies for anything too personal, but there is only a nickname so it's not really personal, is it? Hope you continue to contribute, in spite of people like me. --Infinitesimus (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Are people avoiding Wikipedia? It doesn't seem so. Wikipedia remains a popular information source. In my experience, those who question Wikipedia's reliability are also quick to consult Wikipedia on an unfamiliar topic. To build Wikipedia and enhance its reliability, sometimes we must delete less-than-reliable sources or claims. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The UK's official exams watchdog (Ofqual) has warned school pupils to be extremely wary when using Wikipedia, saying that it is not “authoritative or accurate” and in some cases “may be completely untrue”.[3] Vitaminman (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

XMRV

Hi, I have left a message for you on the XMRV talk page. Cheers! Dangermouse72 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ditto which you've seen. You were right. The talk page was getting a little heated, but I guess that's because we all care about the content. At least the WPI article doesn't really fall into the Medical category so we don't need to follow WP:MEDRS here to the same degree. -- TerryE (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WPI Article

Thanks for your work in creating the WPI article! --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Harvey Whittemore Article

Keepcalmandcarryon, I really think that you've lost the plot on this one. The Notability criteria are quite clear about the reasons for creation of a biography / article on a living person. To be honest I can't see how HP falls into any of these. He isn't in the base category and any of the specific exceptions. I also think that the article crosses into defamation or liable in places (which is unwise thing to do against a lawyer :LoL:), so even if he was notable in Wiki terms we would really need to hose this to move into encyclopaedic conformance.

What has caused you to go in for what is verging on character assassination on an individual? OK, he's a powerful and successful businessman, but there are millions of those globally. Does the fact that he decided to give a few $M setting up a charitable foundation that could possibly benefits millions of CFS sufferers really merit this? -- TerryE (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, re your complaint regarding this above post: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Perceived legal threat, can I quote from the instructions at the top of the noticeboard: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I point out that you didn't have the courtesy to do this.

I am not making any threat or intent of legal action. I also promise not to use humour in my dialogues with you in the future. I didn't really want to get involved in this article as I am not really interested in HW himself, but I guess that I will have to now. -- TerryE (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore daughter

The content (admittedly interpreted strictly) of WP:BLPNAME, along with an observation that the name itself, especially red-linked as it was, added nothing to either article. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Prostate cancer

Thanks for your encouragement! I'm still struggling with the format for references, so if I mess up I hope you'll help. I may want to add a few more major studies and delete some of the previous references that seem to be based on one small study. Your advice is welcome.

Is this where I am supposed to communicate with you? I responded where you wrote to me and then thought I should do this instead.

Umarylandmd (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Breast Cancer

I made a few small changes to the breast cancer article today, which is another subject I know a lot about. My main concern about that article is that it reads like a medical text book, and I think a wikipedia article should be for a lay audience. Any thoughts about that? I also asked about it in the discussion page for the article to see if there was support for my concerns.

Umarylandmd (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS

I've posted my response on my talk page. -- TerryE (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute article

• Please see Request for discussion on triggering Edit War Process. Feel free to contribute to this discussion if you wish. I apologise for contacting all contributors, but I have been asked to be impartial by another editor working on this page. -- TerryE (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Andrea Whittemore-Goad

I have nominated Andrea Whittemore-Goad, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Whittemore-Goad. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Its rubbish

Coatracking Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't come to my talkpage with comments about my blocks, keep on topic about the content, its clearly a bad case of coatracking. Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind if we have a open discussion about this, as adults? expressing our honest opinions? Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate an explanation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason that I don't care about you have a strong POV about this drug or one of these people and you are creating multiple article and pushing your issue at all of them, you are involved and not neutral as regards this, you have a clear issue with it, and you are going from article to article spreading your position, wikipedia is not here for you to express your personal issues with either people or doctors or drugs or whatever it is, that is what I think you are doing and you are coatracking your issue at each article as you go. Me I don't care , its the coatracking of your POV that I don't like, Terry has also got issues with your edits for these reasons. You have also been quite rude and threatening to me without any reason except that I removed your POV from the article, for that you have warned me and referred to my edit history and called my edits worrying and disturbing.. all of that because I trimmed some content from an article in good faith as I saw it as not actually about the subject but about another issue or person. Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion. I would kindly suggest, though that you have things quite backwards. In contrast with TerryE and several other editors he refers to as the "inner circle" of CFS patients and researchers, I am primarily interested in HIV/AIDS and began to follow the topic of XMRV/CFS when a report appeared in the literature last year. Unlike TerryE, I have no direct interest in the outcome of the scientific debate, although as I've expressed several times on the talk pages, I hope the outcome is one that will move forward the health of CFS patients. Until I created several articles, there was no article for the institute making this groundbreaking discovery, nor for any of the (in my opinion) notable individuals who made the institute possible.

That Harvey Whittemore is a controversial figure is not my doing. I am an editor and attempt to report what the reliable sources say. That there is scientific controversy over XMRV and CFS is also not my doing. I'm simply attempting to report, based on reliable sources. If you disagree with what I write, then please edit, discuss, add. I hope you'll agree that AfDs, personal attacks and deletion are less than constructive.

Please continue any discussion of coatracking at the article itself. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't go back there, it makes me sick, it is people coming here with their issues and wanting to use wikipedia as a mouthpiece for their problems and stuff their POV into articles that is one of the worst things here at wikipedia. The thought of discussing from my neutral position with someone who has a strong POV that they insist on propagating at multiple articles makes me noxious, sorry but that is the truth. I would talk to a neutral editor as to how to improve this Biography of a living person until the cows came home, you should also realize that this article is about her, not a mouthpiece for your personal issues. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

KCACO, a couple of times now you've made quotes like

TerryE and several other editors he refers to as the "inner circle" of CFS patients and researchers.

Can I just supply the source for this quote so that other readers can understand the context in which I made it: User_talk:Drgao#A hello from another frequent visitor to the CFS Page. There is no conspiracy here. This was a piece of conciliatory counselling to a new editor who was sliding into an edit war. I feel that you are are mutating the meaning and context of this source. -- TerryE (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, Keepcalm, that you have filed a complaint against Off2riorob at WP:WQA, where you mention edit warring. I have no idea who is in the right of this, nor do I understand the issues debated in this section, however if Off2riorob (or anyone) is engaging in an edit war on this or any issue, the place to take the larger issues beyond civility is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Regards, Jusdafax 20:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on NPOV

Hi, I've been taking a break for a while but I've noticed that you've been aggressively (as usual) pursuing very strong language in various scientific articles. One example that caught my eye today: your edits to the aspartame controversy article. This includes the following language in the lead added:

The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed.<!-- does not support ref name=MAN_Markle/ --><ref name=Hawaii>{{cite web|url=http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-3.pdf |title=Falsifications and Facts about Aspartame - An analysis of the origins of aspartame disinformation|author=the University of Hawaii}}</ref><ref name=urbanlegends>{{cite web|url=http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm|title= Aspartame Warning|publisher=[[About.com]]}} - the Nancy Markle chain email.</ref><ref name=MAN_Markle>[http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teaching_backgrounders/internet/decon_web_pages.cfm Deconstructing Web Pages] - An exercise deconstructing a web page to determine its credibility as a source of information, using the aspartame controversy as the example.</ref>

The above is in reference to the concerns over health problems from aspartame and controversy over conflicts of interest ect. Do you notice anything odd about those three references? They aren't even close to authoritative. Meanwhile, you removed the following from the Safety section, saying that they don't comply with MEDRS:

Several other scientists, while admitting the weaknesses of the previous study, supported the newer study.<ref name=CSPItoFDA>{{cite journal |author=Abdo KM, Camargo CA, Davis D, ''et al.'' |title=Letter to U.S. FDA commissioner. Questions about the safety of the artificial sweetener aspartame |journal=Int J Occup Environ Health |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=449–50 |year=2007 |month=October|pmid=18085059 |doi= |url=http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/aspartame_letter_to_fda.pdf}}</ref> Two scientists referred to the newer study in their comments regarding the potential risks to workers who produce Aspartame and are exposed to it under long-term conditions. They proposed that the FDA "should consider sponsoring a prospective epidemiologic study of aspartame workers."<ref name=huff2007>{{cite journal| work=Int J Occup Environ Health|year=2007|month=October-Dec|volume=13|number=4|page=446–8|title=Aspartame bioassay findings portend human cancer hazards|author=Huff J, LaDou J|pmid=18085058}}</ref>

What's striking about these changes is the the first set of references are random websites (the best is an extension article), while the references you removed are expert commentary, including a 13-person letter from scientists (former NTP scientists and academics) to the FDA published in a PubMed-indexed journal and a commentary from NIEHS's Associate Director for Chemical Carcinogenesis, James Huff. Somehow, these don't qualify for MEDRS while Hawaii's CES, UrbanLegends.com, and Media-Awareness do? That is absurd. I wrote up the section of that article discussing the specific flaws in the ERF study, so I'm well aware (and wrote in) that ERF study issues included "comparing cancer rates of older aspartame-consuming rats to younger control rats; unspecified composition of the "Corticella" diet and method of adding aspartame, leading to possible nutritional deficiencies; unspecified aspartame storage conditions; lack of animal randomization; overcrowding and a high incidence of possibly carcinogenic infections; and the U.S. National Toxicology Program's finding that the ERF had misdiagnosed hyperplasias as malignancies" ... nevertheless, I can't see how you can possibly defend the above edits in light of NPOV. It doesn't matter what you or I think of aspartame's safety - what matters is that you're removing reliable sources and trying to present a very biased article.

I don't have time to spend a bunch of time arguing, so I'm going to try to appeal to your common sense personally. This is a more general issue than that article, as it has been my experience that this is your general approach to articles. II | (t - c) 20:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As I did not add the sources in question, I encourage you to contact those who did. However, describing the controversy (which doesn't require sources satisfying MEDRS is different from making claims about science (which does). The opinions of a handful of academics, as described in opinion pieces in an obscure journal, do not demand the same weight (if any at all) as the conclusions of academic reviews on the subject. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Zidovudine dispute

Whilst I might agree with you content wise, please note I am offering the following advice to both of you:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zidovudine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Although I am myself an admin, I'm engaging in content revision & talk discussion, so I am recused of taking admin action - but edit waring like this is not good process, and risks action by an uninvolved admin. Engage in talk page discussion, and seek view of the relevant projects (WP:MED and WP:PHARM). David Ruben ^Talk 01:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)