User talk:Keepcalmandcarryon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shocking

I'm honestly flabbergasted that the sole flounder would show up to support obvious psuedoscience. Hipocrite (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He's not as bad as Rupert Sheldrake, in my opinion, but he is clearly fringe (and has worse PR than Sheldrake). That article is a mess, and Jimbo hasn't helped. Verbal chat 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but I've got to knuckle under on this one. Obviously, our COI policy has limited meaning if editors must come to a consensus with the subject of the article and one or more of his ardent supporters before editing. But just as obviously, I'm not Jimbo Wales; if he's OK with de Grey and Ben Best gatekeeping this and the woolly flock of related articles (and de facto encouraging them to do so), then I must be, too. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The sole flounder might have the magic founder bit, but that dosen't mean his right. On the contrary, I'd argue. Hipocrite (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Chin up, all. He probably just received a message or two and did what he thought best in light of the BLP imbroglios that keep threatening to take down this site. (It's only a matter of time before WMF is named a party in a defamation suit if they don't solve their BLP issue). It's not the first time a foot has been thrust into a mouth in areas like this. We all make mistakes. Best thing to do is move forward and avoid histrionics. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute

K, re your [1], the study details four tests. We have four options: ignore this fact; state 'four tests' without naming them; "name" them with a few word description drawn from the content; can go into a whole screed of technical detail that will confuse the lay reader, ... The debate on the discussion page should be about which we should adopt and what that content is. The Antibody test was difficult to summarise, so if you have read the earlier part of the section you should have realised that these are Mikowits own summary, not mine.

I incidentally agree with your analysis, to the extent that tests B-D are based directly or indirectly on animal infected MLV antibodies. However the paper does state that "All of these Abs detected the human VP62 XMRV strain grown in human Raji, LNCaP and Sup-T1 cells"; that is they show a response to a broader class of MLV viruses which includes XMRV. So what we strictly have is 68/101 test positive for on test A. (Of the remaining 33 patients) we have 19,10,9 test positive for a gammaretrovirus class which includes XMRV out of 30:12:18 CFS patients and no control positives. Your wording (without the explanation that these tests are positive to XMRV) would imply that these test would only detect MRV and not XMRV. We both know that antibodies can usually show this type of broad class response, but the general reader would not, especially if you conveniently omit to mention the XMRV validation.

Another point is that you summarise the paper as "two patient samples resulted in apparent infection of primary T-cells." [my ital]. However, the report doesn't include the word apparent, so this is a WP:OR value judgement on your part.

If you want to go into this level of detail on this paper, then perhaps we should also discuss another paper on a follow-up study that was completed, written up and submitted 53 days after this one? I could pick a lot better holes in that :-) -- TerryE (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that we've cross posted on this one. I have decided to raise an issue on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts re your actions since your post of the 8th. Accusing both me and Mikowits of "slapdash and scientifically inaccurate" content was really the tipping point. -- TerryE (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please find consensus

Please stop edit warring at Whittemore Peterson Institute until a consensus is reached. Maybe opening a WP:RFC would help. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hope to see you back soon! Verbal chat 22:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Kary Mullis

Maybe the guy has said somewhere that 'the human factor is baloney', but he hasn't done so in the source provided to back up the text (sourced to a video with sidebar of text). I watched it twice now, he doesn't mention the A in AGW at all in that video, yes, he says (as much as) 'global warming theory is wrong', but he doesn't mention the human factor in that source. Please revert your revert of me, or if I have missed it again, provide a timestamp. Thanks.86.3.142.2 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell who you are with all of the IP-hopping. Please use your old account or create a new one. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"with all the ip hopping" ??? LMFAO - two IPs are sooooooooooooo difficult to deal with eh? You are now just obfuscating your deceitful editing. The repeated insertion of false information is considered vandalism, don't put that lie back in again. Thanks.163.1.147.64 (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism. It's edit warring and should stop. Please use the talk page. Gerardw (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts discussion with which you may have been involved.

Hello, Keepcalmandcarryon This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Good enough

Sometimes you just have to go for good enough WP:GEPOV. Gerardw (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Kary Mullis

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Kary Mullis, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

In particular, please beware of edit warring on probation pages. -- TS 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mikovits Bartender Quote

I have raised a BLPN issue on this point. -- TerryE (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Morrison

The IP editor claims to be Tommy Morrison, but he needs to discuss removing sourced information. Woogee (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi my name is John i just joined i saw all the edits that Quayhands made and i want help clean up coyote springs page what can i do?(Massiveprojects (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)).

HIV in the US

Hola,

Regards this diff, it looks like it might actually be a good link and valid information, if appropriately integrated. Would you mind discussing it on the talk:HIV in the US page? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

NIAID citation on Peter Duesberg article

Hi Keepcalmandcarryon, I added some comments to Talk:Peter_Duesberg#NIAID_citation_in_relation_to_Duesberg.27s_claims regarding the NIAID citation on the Peter Duesberg article. I don't know if you have that talk page on your watch list or not, but I'd like your feedback if you get a chance. Yours, --Lewis (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. -- TerryE (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this Groundhog Day, or just déjà vu all over again? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Harassment related to Whittemore Peterson Institute and chronic fatigue syndrome. Thank you. --- 2/0 (cont.) 03:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Talk:Aspartame diff, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. TickleMeister (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

TickleMeister (talk · contribs) warned. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to see what he's said about you on 2/0s talk page - but don't take the bait. Verbal chat 09:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh. A few more AIDS denialists like me and there won't be anything left of "our" movement! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Zidovudine

BruceSwanson is POV-pushing on Zidovudine again. Could you go shut him up? See Talk:Zidovudine#Diff revert. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, the pmc for {{Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.antiviral.2009.10.002}} doesn't seem to be working, I don't know why. Perhaps it's too new to appear on pubmed central? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it...probably won't get to it until tomorrow, though. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a big deal, the PMID takes us to the abstract and a trusted, long-term editor in good standing added it. What kind of POV-pusher would remove it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate attacks

Hi, please redact this comment of yours. Please note that the discussions on talkpages are supposed to be constructive, random mudslinging seems to fall short of such a standard. Best, Unomi (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I will redact no accurate comments I have made about the behaviour or obvious POV of disruptive editors. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• WQA has been taken into use. Unomi (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unomi has a point here, honestly; besides, the Of course sentence actually weakens your argument by making the issue personal rather than simply one of sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

poor guy

editing and modifying copy has its hazards However how do I get through to an reviewer called Sciencewriter who classifies patients with chronic fatigue syndrome as psychiatric and will not accept edits, references or treatment that are not psychiatric in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denlander (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is simply that your edit failed WP:MEDRS and you also have a WP:COI because you are pushing a treatment that you yourself sell to CFS patients (an unproven one at that - I wonder what the insurance companies would think of that?) Anyway, this has nothing to do with Keepcalmandcarryon, so I'd suggest you continue the discussion at my talk page or the CFS talk page. And please stop making baseless and untrue accusations against me. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations

Please discuss the issues that have been raised before restoring your BLP violating text. You can't use article that are 16 years old to establish someone's current viewpoint. It's also not appropriate to coatrack in arguments and citations that don't discuss the article subject. There are articles on Intelligent Design and AIDs denialism. It is not appropriate to denigrate a BLP subject in order to present your preferrede POV. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the text is not mine. It has been on the page for well over two years now, perhaps longer. It's what we call a consensus version. I have only rarely visited this page and was merely restoring what you deleted and replaced with unsourced editorialising. AIDS denialism and creationism are both fringe belief systems. There is no BLP violation in mentioning this, even if the sources do not mention Johnson...in the same way that an article on a crystal healing advocate could mention that crystal healing is not endorsed by medicine, even if medical articles do not specifically mention the crystal healer by name. This is not coatracking; its an appropriate way, per WP:FRINGE to ensure that fringe theory advocates don't turn Wikipedia into a host for promoting pseudoscience. Similarly, writing, from verifiable sources, that an individual espouses the creation myth or AIDS denialism is not denigration. It's curious, in fact, that you would suggest that a belief system is a matter for denigration.

Finally, I provided two sources for Johnson's AIDS denialism. One is old, one is new. This establishes that Johnson held these beliefs for a long period of time. If you have a source stating that Johnson has renounced AIDS denialism since August, 2009, please provide it. We should certainly note the reported change. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Phillip E. Johnson. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:3RR; I reverted your deletion of sourced information only twice in a 24-hour period. In contrast, you've made five reversions, either of the previous consensus text or of ScienceApologist's thoughtful edits. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI BLPN

Hi, your additions or edits have been mentions in a thread at the BLP noticeboard here thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the "dispute" tag to the article until your BLP violations and misrepresentations of sources are addressed so readers know that the article contents are disputed. Freakshownerd (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Only one person is disputing anything: you. And that's not a very good basis for tagging an article. What you dispute is not the wording of the article itself, but the statements found in the sources. We can't change sources to make them say what we want, nor may we ignore the content of sources that don't fit our preconceptions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My comments on Aspartame talk page

Look out. You are calling another editor's comments off topic spam and deleting them from a talk page on specious grounds. diff TickleMeister (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. If it's internal and relevant, "spam" is a _very_ questionable term to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Savior of mothers

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Savior of mothers, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. 81.153.50.152 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your personal attacks

Please refrain from attacking me personally and misrepresenting my views. I'm sorry if you're upset that I've highlighted your abuses of our BLP policies, but whatever our views we can't slander article subjects with dishonest smears. It's none of your business, but my views happen to be consistent with the scientific consensus on AIDS and HIV. If you focus on sourcing and content, you should be okay. I know it can take a while to get the hang of proper article writing. Freakshownerd (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

KCCO isn't the one whose edits are being contested and reverted on multiple pages, you are.

"Denialism" is a pejorative, and accurate term, for people who deny that HIV causes AIDS. This isn't a scientific discussion any more, this is people letting ideology determine their science. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea

Wish we could share a cup of tea in real life - I'm sure I'd enjoy it based on all of our interactions on WP. Your balanced and well-informed edits have often made me feel better when battered by irrational forces here. I was just reading a Talk page when I came across some of our past interactions, and realized it'd been too long. I hope you're well, and that we'll interact sometime soon. Best, Scray (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC) has asked you to join him for a nice cup of tea and sit down.

---

Attack on you

I just removed a gross BLP and NPA violation directed at you and another editor. Something needs to be done about 159.105.80.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). -- Brangifer (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, my friend

I've read your message. I think we are both agree in this. AIDS denialism page should not be for fringe theories. I'm not mad that you've erased the discussion, if it was necessary. But I still think that we can collaborate, you, me, and the serious non-agenda editors for making it better. I have a reason for this and, believe it or not, having a finely updated page about AIDS denialism can produce benefits to the Official theories, as people, when reading, will say that "officialists guys respect AIDS denialists, while AIDS denialists do not respect officialists..."

But moreafter that, it is necessary for improving Wikipedia. Anyway, is just my opinion. Pleasure! Milikguay (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice...Aspartame

A complaint has been filed at AN/I located here. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice on the pages of all editors who have commented at Talk:Aspartame controversy in recent history. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

My contribution to the "House of Numbers" talk page

Sir/Madam,

I spent some time explaining on the appropriate talk page, citing references, why the unreferenced statements in the "House of Numbers" article suggesting that Christine Maggiore and her daughter died of AIDS were untrue. I did so as it seems appropriate to allow such topics to be discussed before changes are made to the article itself, which is my understanding of what a talk page is for. I spent some time making this contribution but it seems you deleted it.

Please reinstate them and allow some discussion. If you will not I hereby formally request that you allow this to go to arbitration. In all seriousness I cannot see why you deleted the text I added. It was all about improving the article in question by pointing out that some of the information was untrue so suggesting it should be deleted.

Ponzi Nemesis (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources state that Maggiore's daughter died of untreated HIV infection/AIDS. The reliable sources also state that Maggiore died with several AIDS-defining conditions, as the article accurately conveys. (Note that we do not say she died of AIDS, although this is the obvious, logical conclusion, whatever a sympathetic doctor wrote on the death certificate.)

If you have reliable sources (not blogs or internet readers' comments) that state that neither Maggiore nor her daughter had any AIDS-defining conditions when they died, you are welcome to present them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

I undid your removal of my edits to the Duesberg Hypothesis article. First, you removed my reference to Kary Mullis' well-known support of Duesberg, with no reason given. Second, there are prominent members of " the scientific community" as defined by Wikipedia, apart from Mullis, who do not believe Duesberg's views are the result of cherry-picking old data or anything of the sort, including the co-discoverer of HIV. Roberterubin (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

First, Mullis is prominent, but his views on AIDS, although probably denialist, do not seem to fall squarely under the "Duesberg Hypothesis".

Second, no respected scientist agrees with Duesberg, and even those few who once supported him for one reason or another have changed their tune. The notion that Luc Montagnier is a "rethinker" or otherwise agrees with Duesberg is what is referred to in polite society as bullshit. Montagnier reportedly has some bizarre ideas (water memory, etc.), and has said some controversial things, but at no time has he espoused the Duesberg Hypothesis. Yes, you can find this sort of nonsense on the Internet, but Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not denialist websites. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am not sure what you are referring to by my removal of content . if I did that, it was by accident. However, you are clearly biased against Duesberg and his supporters, as your insulting references clearly show. Beyond that, I do think there is a problem in characterizing the "Duesberg Hypothesis" in the way the article in question does.Roberterubin (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Duesberg Hypothesis is characterized and will be characterized on Wikipedia as it is in the scientific literature, which is and has been overwhelmingly critical and dismissive of it, to the point that it is rarely even mentioned, much less addressed, today. Wikipedia's bias, and mine, is in favor of the scientific literature. Unless you plan to change this policy, I suggest that this encyclopaedia is not the place to air your views on Duesberg and AIDS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive and respectful tone. By "characterization" of what in fact one means by the Duesberg hypothesis, I meant to refer to what Professor Duesberg has actually stated, rather than what others think about it, and I certainly grant your point on its being unpopular and largely rejected by the vast majority (but not all) scientists with the relevant expertise. What Duesberg has stated unequivocally is that he does not believe HIV causes the conditions that have been associated with AIDS. He offers, much less categorically, alternative explanations of these conditions. He has also responded to many of the critiques cited in the article, but his responses go unmentioned. My very minor edits were meant to make the article a bit more balanced. I personally do not have a position on the merits of the debate, and am not in any case interested in using Wikipedia as a place to "air" my personal views. I do view Wikipedia as a place for discussion when there is disagreement, and I don't believe personal insults and attacks are appropriate.Roberterubin (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see undue weight. It is not a neutral point of view to give undue weight to fringe topics. As of today, there is no evidence whatsoever that these AIDS denialist have a clue about anything. And no, I am not respectful of denialists. I'll leave Keepcalm to be calm.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:FORUM. Wikipedia is not a place for discussion of controversial topics, although it is often abused as such by individuals with fringe agendas. If you are not one of those individuals, please don't be offended. However, a boisterous defense of Duesberg, without the use of reliable sources and against the weight of the scientific literature does not exactly give the impression of objectivity. Ultimately, my views and your views are of no importance to the article. Rather, the 63 sources determine the content of the article. If you feel that the sources are unfair to Duesberg and make personal insults and attacks, there's not much you can do about that apart from contributing to the literature yourself.

As for support for the Duesberg hypothesis by "scientists with the relevant expertise", it does not appear that there is any support from scientists who have studied HIV/AIDS and thus have the relevant expertise. You can find quite a bit of interesting material on the internet about thousands of scientists and doctors supporting Duesberg or the co-discoverer of HIV supporting Duesberg, but as stated previously, we need reliable sources, not rumours and unverified web pages, to build the encyclopaedia.

Please make any additional comments at the talk page of the relevant article, and take care to cite reliable sources and avoid general discussion of the topic. I apologise, but I'm not interested in continuing a fruitless debate here. There are many websites that welcome this sort of debate, and I encourage you to seek them out if you're interested in the topic of AIDS denial. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

SPI comments on WPI Talk

K, I clearly said in my SPI note that I believe that you followed policy. My comments were a criticism of the policy not of you.

When you say that I was coaching the sockpuppet, this doesn't make sense because I was the first one to raise this possibility indirectly when I reverted One000's first edit. I guess I was silly enough to try to follow WP:NEWCOMER: If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out things that they've done correctly or well. and Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account.

Maybe I am just a little more liberal than you in that I believe in being open about who I am, what I stand for, that WP business should be conducted openly, and that people deserve a fair trial before being found guilty. I know we have different approaches and have crossed swords, but can we at least be civil in our work together. I would really appreciate you not regularly accusing me of being an SPA, POV, pro WPI etc. It really gets very tedious. Thank-you. -- TerryE (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I also correct another couple of "facts" that you stated on the SPI talk page:

• Byanose hasn't edited since his/her 3RR warning and only edited the WPI article in Main. I had no dialogue with B as I regarded the editor as a rude nuisance. Only with One000 in a way entirely consistent with the WP:CIVIL guidance.
• I don't monitor editors such as yourself or OM. Life's too short. I went to OMs talk page because he'd reverted an edit on WPI and then didn't respond to a point on WPI talk. I only became aware of the SPI because I was responding to a talk post that One000 made to me.
• You say that you want to keep the attendee list on SPIs small because POV editors might complicate the process. I say that any accused has the right to a fair trail and that means that the attendees shouldn't just be limited to the judge and prosecution.
• When One000 was labelled as an SPA, the guy had done only one Main space edit. Every newbie is an SPA by this definition.
• You keep saying I have a strong POV. Just exactly what is it if it's that strong? My POV is a belief in scientific method and that the RS should be used verbatim, not enhanced or "do better" as you have said recently. My POV is that we should follow the PnG both in spirit and in their entirety and not to treat them as some bible where you pick out the verses that support your cause and ignore the ones that don't. My POV is that WP should not be used as a vehicle to attack any scientific author that has not had a substantive claim against them, so I still include Mikovits in the same group as Wessely and not in the smaller Wakfield group, but I suspect that we differ on this. As I have said on the talk page a number of times, I think that the case is swinging against WPI so how am I a WPI "defender"?
• The SPI last year. That was closed and I got flamed for it. I accepted the finding and archived the detailed 50x50 user analysis that I did to respond to some of the technical criticisms never to be brought up again. However, it is difficult to follow this decision when you yourself repeatedly bring it into discussions, when it simply isn't relevant: if I don't comment then I leave accusations unanswered; if I do then I breach the intent of the SPI finding. -- TerryE (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Terry, I have to ask you a question. Why do you not use indents? It's always hard to respond to you. Well, that's a minor point. I'm going to make an honest point with you. In my vast years on the internet (15, participating in a number of newsgroups in the day), I have always found when someone says they "believe in the scientific method (or science or evolution or whatever", I can immediately conclude that they do not. First of all, you can't "believe" in science, but that's a minor point. And writing an article does not employ the "scientific method". For all that you say, you seem to be very supportive of the WPI. Anyways, you can look at my page all you want. It can be entertaining. Sometimes a bit of drama.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy drama, but this is just soporific. It would be admirable if TerryE and other editors used some of the prodigious energy with which they monitor and protest my utterly and shockingly offensive behaviour to, dare I say it, actually edit the encyclopaedia. And maybe even articles that are unrelated to CFS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

BLPN - Judy Mikovits

Hi there is a thread at the BLPN here that is disputing content that you added to this BLP, would you please comment, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Immunomodulation_therapy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Immunomodulation_therapy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Scray (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
:Realizing that you have been inactive, I'm posting this anyway. You are missed. -- Scray (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Scray! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, and nice work on OMICS Publishing Group. II | (t - c) 09:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll second on both accounts! -- Scray (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

List of photographers

I had to reinstate the entry for Destin Sparks in List of photographers. The article passes WP:GNG and states he is a photographer, therefore he belongs in the list. If the subject is not notable, then this must be pursued in the article, asking for sources, else going to PROD or AfD. If the article gets deleted then it should also be removed from the list. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

CFS Edit

Hi KeepCalmandCarryOn, I was hoping you could give me a little feedback as to what is expected as far as MEDRS goes, as many of the sources I posted are from pubmed journals which I thought were acceptable posts. Thanks for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloha76 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)