Hello, Pez1103, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Fyslee20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've made some changes to Morgellons that totally change the nature of the article, and make it seem as is Morgellons is a recognized disease. Can you justify these changes? Please discuss on the Morgellons discussion page. -- Herd of Swine22:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- lucasbfrtalk22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Morgellons (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pez. You have been blocked for a day due to your severe edit warring on Morgellons. Once you are unblocked, please contribute constructively by taking the issue at hand to the talk page — if someone reverts you, that means they disagree. When people disagree, the ordeal should be taken to the talk page of the article. In the meantime, if you serve your block in peace it will help you. If you have any questions, you are still able to edit your talk page. —this is messedrocker(talk)23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was written by a man who has an agenda -- to discredit Morgellons as a legitimate disease. I don't think that furthering a biased agenda is the goal of Wikipedia. The man who contributes to this page started an anti-morgellons website called morgellonswatch. The CDC is currently researching this newly emerging infectious disease. I would like to see this article completely revised or deleted.
The first paragraph for example, comments in caps.
Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a controversial name THE NAME OF THE DISEASE IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL (OPINION) for an alleged THE TONE OF THIS WORD HAS A NEG CONNOTATION polysymptomatic syndrome characterized ITS CHARACTERIZED BY MORE THAN THAT by patients finding fibers on their skin THEY FIND FIBERS COMING OUT FROM SORES, which they believe are related to other symptoms, including intense itching, skin lesions, as well as a wide range of other chronic symptoms. These symptoms are occasionally accompanied by the belief in an infestation by some unknown arthropod or parasite THIS STATEMENT SHOULD BE DELETED. The term Morgellons is not in accepted use by the medical community and the syndrome is widely held CAN YOU PROVE IT IS WIDELY HELD OR ONLY SOMETIMES DIAGNOSED AS by the medical community to be a type of delusional parasitosis. There is no agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment. Pressure from patients, including doctors and nurses who claim to have a host of difficult symptoms A HOST OF DIFFICULT SYMPTOMS OR THE DRAFT CASE DEFINITION FOR MORGELLONS DISEASE, resulted in a June 2006 statement from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it had begun organizing a committee for the purpose of investigating Morgellons to determine whether it exists. DID THE CDC SAY THAT THEY WERE INVESTIGATING IT DUE TO PRESSURE FROM PATIENTS? I DOUBT IT.
Interesting point. That paragraph doesn't seem to cite any sources, so if you could provide any sources that say that Moregellons is a legitimate disease, etc, I'd be willing to clarify the first paragraph. —this is messedrocker(talk)11:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about this as the first paragraph? It is more factual and unbiased.
Morgellons or Morgellons disease is the name of what may be a newly emerging infectious disease. There is not yet an agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment for this disease. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is preparing to conduct a full investigation. (NY TIMES, October 24, 2006)
Here are some doctors who agree that it is a real disease:
"I think it's a real disease," said Dr. Rafael Stricker, a physician in San Francisco who sees many patients claiming to have Morgellons. "Certainly there is an element of psychiatric distress here, but that's because the patients are ill and nobody wants to listen to them," he said.Many patients also test positive for Lyme disease, Dr. Stricker has
found; certain antibacterial and antiparasitic medications sometimes seem to alleviate the symptoms, he said." "I feel it's a parasite, perhaps a fungus," Dr. Uppal said. "You
have to give patients the benefit of the doubt."(NY TIMES ARTICLE:October 24, 2006)
In the section on duval county, the Wikipedia fails to mention that the county only performed a "literature search." The county stated " [Studies]prove to be costly and require support from various medical specialists. DCHD does not currently have the resources to support such a study here in Jacksonville." Therefore, no actual research study was performed. This information is from footnote 7. http://cctvimedia.clearchannel.com/wtev/morg3.doc.
Information about preliminary research should be included in the article:
Preliminary Research Findings
Dr. Wymore of the Oklahoma State University recruited two Oklahoma State faculty physicians who tweezed fibers from beneath the skin of some Morgellons patients. The samples were sent to the Tulsa Police Department’s forensic laboratory. The police checked the samples against carpet and clothing fibers and other materials, and conducted chemical analyses and other tests, and found no matches against any fiber in their databases. However, the fibers taken from the Morgellons patients matched each other. [source http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06204/707970-85.stm]
Dr. Citovsky of SUNY Stonybrook has also conducted some preliminary research on Morgellons. Preliminary findings indicate that Agrobacterium was found in the cells of Morgellons patients and may be involved in the etiology and /or progression of Morgellons disease. Pathogenic Agrobacterium is known to produce cellulose fibers at infection sties within host tissues and is commonly used in biotechnology to genetically alter plants. Preliminary findings indicate that Agrobacterium was found in the cells of Morgellons patients. In a CNN interview, Dr. Citovsky stated, "when I look into the skin of these Morgellons patients, I see DNA from something that could only come from a plant." Agrobacterium may very well be the pathogen that distinguishes Morgellons disease. If these results are confirmed, it would be the first example of a plant-infecting bacterium playing a role in human disease. Dr. Citovsky has received numerous additional samples from Morgellons patients, but due to a lack of funding, cannot test these samples at this time. He has applied for a grant from the National Institute of Heath to perform this work. source http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/23/pzn.01.html
I also would like a section added on Randy Wymore who is one of the leading reserchers of this disease:
“When I started looking into this, it wasn’t about treatment or figuring out what was causing this,” Wymore said. “It was really just to try and say: ‘Is there some evidence that there is a real disease here?’”
He compared Morgellons fibers with everyday fibers he collected from clothes and department stores during a road trip with his family to California. Not one looked like the fibers festering out of and beneath the skin of Morgellons sufferers. Wymore is now convinced the condition is real. He said his fiber research should also silence critics who say Morgellons is a form of delusions in which patients believe parasites or bugs are attacking their skin. “Delusions of parasites is a purely psychiatric disorder,” Wymore said. “Morgellons is a physical pathology that happens to have some psychiatric effects.”
Source: http://www.newsok.com/article/2853143
I think that the section MRF marred by contraversy should be deleted entirely. It is unnecessarily inflamatory. A couple people resigned. There is absolutely no proof of any inpropriety, yet the way it is worded makes that implication.
The symptoms section is inadequate/incomplete. It makes more sense to quote the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology.
Morgellons symptoms include skin lesions which can be anything from minor to disfiguring in their appearance, sensations of crawling and biting on and under the skin, and the appearance of fibers and granules coming out of the skin. According to statistics from the Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF), the majority (95%) of affected patients also report symptoms of disabling fatigue and self-described "brain fog" or problems with attention. Patients also report a high incidence (50%) of fibromyalgia, joint pain, and sleep disorders. Other symptoms include hair loss, decline in vision, neurological disorders and disintegration of teeth in the absence of caries or gingivitis. Most patients are unable to continue working, and those who are able to continue working report that they do not function optimally.
Pez, thank you for starting to use the talk page. We are here to work together, and it's always nice to have a good working relationship with other editors. Here are a few pointers:
To make a proper signature, type four tildes like these ~~~~. It automatically produces your user name and the time of the edit. (This only applies to talk pages.)
When you make edits in articles you should use edit summaries. There is a blank space designed for that at the bottom of the editing window.
As to the introductory sentences (wikipedia doesn't use an "Introduction" section, but what is called a "lead." You can read about it here: WP:LEAD. The lead sums up the contents of the article, without anything more, different, or new. IOW the article must include the information in depth already,
with good sources (WP:RS, WP:V). These are Wikipedia policies that must be understood before doing too much editing. With time you will get to understand them better.
Pez - as was suggested above, can you please sign your edits, just type four tildes like these ~~~~. That will automatically be converted into your user name and a timestamp, like : Herd of Swine23:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
pez, please sign in, that way your comments will be marked with your user name, rather than your IP address. Also, it's somewhat impolite to edit your own comments after someone else has responded to them. Herd of Swine21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pez1103! I see that you've edited since I left another reply in the section listed above, but I assume you've missed them because I haven't seen anything, so I thought I'd drop you a friendly reminder here. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've continued to edit without response. On the chance that you were unable to find the comment in question, I've pasted it here as a courtesy. I hope you will return it by answering my inquiry. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! I see that you've edited again since this request, just a courtesy reminider here if you've forgotten to respond. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about -- I didn't state that ("you will not accept any scientific results that may contradict your personal beliefs"). It seems like you are trying to attack me personally. Why not drop it and let's just discuss the issues instead. Pez1103 19:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, when you finally answered my question (after trying to delete it) you stated "it would be impossible for the CDC to prove that Morg doesn't exist" and "If that was the determination, there is nothing to say that in the future, with advanced technology, they would be able to discover evidence that would prove it exists -- like finding the pathogen, for example". This seems to indicate that you're convinced that it does exist exactly as described and that because of your certainty, any scientific process that says "well, no, it doesn't appear to exist" must be inherently flawed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, you still have not said what part of my question was personal or inappropriate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I take it you are the one editing the MRF web pages[1]. I see that you recently removed some text:
The MRF is also committed to raising the funds required to research this medical mystery, and has funded three university research scientists thus far.
and
The MRF is currently trying to raise $350,000. $233,000 is needed to fund one year of research at the Research Institute. The remainder will be distributed among the other researchers. Donations are needed more than ever to fund these critical projects. All donations are tax deductible.
and
The NIH and Harvard University conducted a limited analysis of the fibers. Unfortunately, the results of this research were inconclusive. Work has also been performed by a clinical microbiologist and forensic scientists. The results of this work are included below. Over the past few years, the MRF has reached out to hundreds of scientists, but very few were interested in researching an unknown disease for a foundation with limited funding.
and added a paragraph:
We certainly respect the fact that not all researchers wish to have intense public attention, and we leave it up to the individual research group to decide whether to be public. We hope that people will understand that this is an individual decision.
can you explain what is going on here? Are some researchers withdrawing, or withdrawing their results? If so, that would need to be reflected in the Wikipedia page.
Herd of Swine00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't change the website. The first statement was on teh main page and the research page adn they were tyring to make room on teh main page for the newsletter sign up, so it was deleted. It's still true. The amount needed for research keeps going up since the foundation is receiving new formal grant proposals each week -- the program was instituted last month. I think that the next comment was removed because it didnt't add anything to the page. The last comment just explains why not all the names of the researchers are made public. No one is withdrawing. No results have been withdrawn. No one is hiding anything.
Okay, I just wanted to clarify. So is it still the MRF position that they are funding three university researchers, and the one independent lab? And now the funding goals are much higher than $350,000? Herd of Swine04:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the MRF has given funding to 3 universities. I believe that the lab is volunteering. (that is what the website says.) The funding goals -- I don't know what the exact goal is -- ideally it would be to fund all the proposals, but this may not be realistic. I suppose that the board has to go thru all the proposals and decide which they want to fund.
Pez, it's very impolite to substantially edit your own comments on the talk page, people read what you write, start to respond, and then find you've changed what you've said so thier response makes no sense. Please just ADD to your comments, and don't edit them (except for typos, etc). Herd of Swine14:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edits to Morgellons You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.
Herd of Swine19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest warning regarding Morgellons article
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.
By way of clarification, here is a pertinent excerpt from WP:COI:
"Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest."
You are hereby being asked, politely, to refrain from any further editing of the Morgellons article; your position as a volunteer for this advocacy group is a conflict of interest, and in promoting this organization via Wikipedia you have repeatedly violated guidelines such as WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE), WP:FRINGE, and WP:3RR. If you wish to continue contributing to the article, you need to familiarize yourself with these guidelines and learn to abide by them, in order to avoid administrative intervention. Dyanega20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a violation of Wiki's rules to use someone's affiliations in an effort to attack them. You need to leave me alone.
I could say that herd has a conflict of interest because he runs www.morgellonswatch.com. I could say that you have a conflict of interest because you are an entomologist and have a vested interest in protecting the position that entomologists have taken over the years telling morgellons sufferers that they are delusional. Maybe you're afraid of a lawsuit when the truth come out. I have no conflict of interest. I'm trying to help people who are suffering and are being abandoned by the medical community.
Please read WP:COI carefully. I strongly suspect that you have not yet done so, and it is important that you do. It is a violation of Wiki's rules to POV-edit an article that deals with an advocacy group of which you are a member - whether you are a volunteeer or a paid member of the group is irrelevant. It's too bad if you're only just now discovering that - it does happen to be one of the cases where personal information about an editor can result in suspension of their editing privileges. I cannot state it any plainer than the rules already state it. Whatever your opinion of Herd, "morgellonswatch.com" is not, by any definition, an advocacy group (an organization that takes money with the promise of spending it in order to promote the interests of the donators). It is, if anything, a blog, and there are no WP rules that say bloggers cannot edit pages related to the topic of their blogs. He also adheres to WP policy, where you do not. You will also note that there is only ONE link in the Morgellons article to Herd's website, and it is not even in the text of the article; thanks to your edits, there are now more than 30 citations in the text that link to the MRF either directly or to their Scientific Advisory Board members, a violation of WP:UNDUE. The MRF is an advocacy group, and you work for them, that is a conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it, plain and simple. Your personal idea of what constitutes a conflict is irrelevant. As for myself, I am a wikipedia editor - my only interest is NEUTRALITY, and you are the most egregious and persistent violator of that principle I have encountered in over a year editing Wikipedia articles. If you continue violating the WP guidelines mentioned above, you will get exactly what you have asked for on numerous occasions today: administrative intervention. The warning is now a matter of public record, as is your response. It will not serve your cause to continue disputing this. Believe it or not, you have my sympathy, but your advocacy efforts are not welcome in Wikipedia, and it is long past time you realized that. Read WP:NOT: Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. Just because you can crank call your senator's office "several times a week"[2] does not mean the same tactics will work here. Dyanega22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the conflict of interest rules very carefully and don't believe that they apply. I am attempting to take an article which was very biased and make it more neutral by presenting other points of view -- I have always used cited material. The material that you and herd present is always biased towards the DOP view. His is shameful promotion of himself, his beliefs promolugated on his website. Yours is to protect your profession. If you both can make entries, I certainly can. Pez110323:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "friends" with any of the other editors on this article. We are insisting that you comply with WP policy, and that is entirely appropriate, and has nothing to do with abuse. The only abuse here is your abuse of the privilege of editing, a privilege that you have demonstrated you do not deserve, since you consistently violate and repudiate the editorial policy guidelines the community has set forth, including - and especially - violation of the guidelines regarding Conflict of Interest. You work for the organization whose website you are promoting through the "cited material" you have been inserting; that is COI. "Neutral" does not mean an article has to present other points of view if those points of view are held by only a tiny minority, and it EXPLICITLY does not have to give "equal weight" to minority viewpoints. You have also repeatedly denied Herd's attempts to add new cited material from authoritative, peer-reviewed sources, claiming that they are "biased". That is YOUR OPINION, and as an editor, you are not supposed to express your opinion through your editing. How on earth is his inclusion of a quote from the Atlas of Human Parasitology "shameful promotion of himself"? And in what conceivable way is my profession - I identify and classify insects for a living - "protected" by the medical community's stance that Morgellons is not a new disease? Unfortunately, you and your opinions and your advocacy are no longer welcome here, not because you hold those beliefs, but because you have shown over the course of almost a year that you cannot divorce your editing from your beliefs - read this from WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia content is not: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. That is indeed my suggestion to you - go elsewhere - fortunately for you, you already HAVE your "lymebusters" forum to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. Just don't expect that Wikipedia is an appropriate place for you to attempt the same thing. Dyanega01:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit blanked the page. Not sure what you were trying to do, but if you try again, please don't remove everything. Thanks. Picaroon(t)01:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comments on the COI page were not intended as legal threats. They were just intended to point out that if both parties positions that Morgellons is delusional is disproven, they could be both be subject to lawsuits, which may give them a COI and bias with respect to this article. I did not threaten to sue them - if you look on the COI page itself (not just the excerpts cited above) I specifically said that I would not sue them when I was asked if I was making a legal threat. Herd does have the potential to be sued if it is proven that Morgellons is not delusional. This is a fact, not a threat. He runs an entire website www.morgellonswatch.com which was established solely to discredit morgellons disease. If Morgellons is not delusional, many statements he made on that site may be considered libel or slander. Dyanega is an entomologist and has been telling her Morgellons clients for years that they are delusional and the samples they have provided were just textile. If it is proven that they are not, maybe one of them would sue her. Again, I stated that I am not a client of Dyanega and would not sue her and am just mentioning this to explain why Dyanega may have a conflict of interest which would bias the article. I appreciate your consideration of this matter.
Last week an editor said that if Morgellons is found not to be "real" the executive director could go to prision. No one said that this was a legal threat. All this needs to be taken in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pez1103 (talk • contribs) 16:02, August 5, 2007
I'm afraid I don't consider that a legal threat, either, although it's totally in error. I would think the block should only be a week under WP:CIVIL. But I'm involved, so I shouldn't review. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)14:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that there were multiple statements on three different pages. A third instance occurred at this user talk page.[5] I would have given a warning if I had seen it only once or if the editor appeared to be unfamiliar with basic policies; this one was citing various policies at content opponents and revised posts several times without softening the implied threat (even in once case revising a post to add an implied threat). It's the chilling effect that concerned me, as well as the appearance that the editor knew Wikipedia standards enough to know better. I'm discussing this via e-mail with the editor presently and I think we can work out a return. DurovaCharge!17:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pez1103, I fixed the formatting on your next section below. To start new sections, use two == not ===. If you use === it makes a subsection instead of a new section heading. --ParsifalHello17:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the advice of Durova and Parsifal, I am requesting to be adopted so I can learn how to handle difficult editing situations more effectively. One of the articles I edit has a lot of POV-pushing going on and I need help understanding how to make the article more NPOV without getting sidetracked into edit wars and arguments. I would like to respond more effectively with other editors who have an agenda that is not neutral. Also, I've been advised to try a WP:RFC and need to learn how to do that. I hope to find an adopter who can help me learn how to be more effective as a Wikipedia editor especially in challenging situations. Thank you! Pez110310:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that you requested adoption from a user who has, so far as I can tell, been inactive for some time now. I also noted that you seem to be involved in some, shall we say, "discussion" about Morgellons. Right now, I'm in the processing of trying to turn Athanasius of Alexandria into something other than the serious NPOV piece it currently is, but on the completion of this reworking, I can try to offer what assistance I can. John Carter15:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS:You really want to do something about the [[User;Pez11033] page. Right now it looks like you haven't done anything with it yet, and that does make it look somewhat strange. I don't know what kind of thing you'd want to add, but something would definitely be useful. John Carter16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any biographical data you think might be relevant, if you think any is relevant. Maybe one or more of the userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery. My own userpage is hardly anything to use as a basis for anything, but maybe some material along the lines of User:Kingboyk or User:Pastordavid's pages, even if nowhere near as much material as they have, as they have both had a lot more time on wikipedia than you. But something to indicate to anyone who sees your edits who you are, what your specific interests are, if you think them relevant, that sort of thing. John Carter18:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could put a bit like my Userpage, not that it's outstanding at all lol but it's a start and didn't take a huge amount of time. The page is mainly supposed to talk about your interests and what you get up to on wikipedia. You could stick a few Wikipedia:Userboxes up, there are lots to choose from there. You can choose one for example that says any qualifications you have, things you like or believe in etc. And write a sentence or two about what you like to do on wikipedia. You can do all this without revealing info that might identify you and put you at risk etc. It just makes people think you want to get on with others on wiki and be part of the community type thing.:)Merkinsmum21:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say a few words and perhaps give you some advice about your behavior.
First, we can dispense with the allegations of violating the conflict of interest policy. That policy does not prohibit conflicted editors from editing, it merely reminds people that editing from a conflicted position often leads to behaviors that lead to bans and blocks. So it doesn't really matter who you are or what your relationship to morgellons and the MRF is, as long as you can edit according to community conduct standards, and if you don't edit according to community standards, you can be sanctioned regardless of whether you have a conflict or not.
One important thing to realize is that Wikipedia, by its very nature (as described in policies like use reliable sources, avoid undue weight, no original research, and so on) must report majority views as majority views and minority views as minority views. It is true that minority views sometimes become the majority view. In that respect Wikipedia must lag, not lead. If Wikipedia had existed in 1616, it would have reported the majority view that the Earth was the center of the universe, with a small note to the effect that an Italian astronomer and inventor had suggested otherwise. As far as I am aware, the view that Morgellons is a form of DP is the current majority view among physicians. Certainly the view of the MRF must be fairly and accurately presented, but it can not be presented as the truth or as the majority view.
Perhaps most important in your case is the principle that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Edits like these [6][7] show that you have a completely wrong approach to editing an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy, and I have seen time and time again that editors who come here to advocate for a particular point of view (on topics as disparate as evangelists and depleted uranium) end up being banned from editing their chosen topic because they can not adapt to Wikipedia's cultural norms and behavioral expectations.
Now, if you feel that the MRF view is being misrepresented, you can file a request for comment or request for a third opinion to try and get the views of outside editors and expand the range of people editing the article. You may also wish to attempt mediation (there are two forms, MEDCAB and MEDCOM). However, edit warring and making strong advocacy statements ("People are dying of this disease and efforts via wikipedia to trivialize the disease HURT SICK CHILDREN AND ADULTS. It is morally reprehensible, and incredibly distructive") will probably lead to a ban on your being able to edit the topic.
I have some acquaintance with medical research and know how to read and interpret research articles. I may decide to take an interest in the article, which would mean I could not act as an administrator. I'll have to see how my time goes. It is certainly possible that other editors have gone too far in trying to downplay the MRF side of the article. Negative information about the founders of the MRF is almost certainly a problem, and should be included only cautiously or not at all depending on its relevance. But these matters must be addressed through the normal system, and standing on a soapbox shouting that wikipedia is hurting children is going to put you in an untenable position. Thatcher13114:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly support the comments of both Anchoress and Thatcher131. These are seasoned Wikipedians and their suggestions are well chosen. Pez, I'm glad that you've sought mentorship. That positive step has earned you a measure of good faith patience from me. It's important now that you follow up on that with other positive steps. The most important things you could do are pursue the standard dispute resolution options or, perhaps, take a Wikibreak. Health and family are always more important than a website. DurovaCharge!19:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pez, you can't get much better help and support here at Wikipedia than from Durova and Thatcher. These are very wise and experienced admins who really try to help editors who are in difficulty (which can happen to any of us). Their advice is good and you will gain our trust if you follow it. Even if you take a wikibreak, the article will be here tomorrow and it will never be "finished" anyway. (Articles here can always be changed, which unfortunately means that even Featured articles get ruined.) Your own and your child's health deserve your attention. You can then return with renewed strength after allowing their advice to percolate for awhile. -- Fyslee/talk08:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to post messages suggesting that I have been making personal attacks on you (at least 7 such accusations in just the last three days). I strongly suspect that you are not aware that, among other guidelines, WP does actually have a policy regarding what is and is not a "personal attack" - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'd like you to please carefully consider the following passage from those guidelines:
"Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.
Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy."
You, and other editors here, will note that nearly every case where you have accused me of making a personal attack falls precisely into the scenario described above, especially the example of "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", which I have made many times. If you make statements that are contradicted by cited sources, or statements that contradict other things you have yourself stated earlier, or statements for which you can offer no visible support, and try to use these statements to justify your edits, then my challenging these statements does NOT constitute a "personal attack". I will admit that my responses are often not as civil as they could be, but you have not acknowledged any inappropriate actions or behaviors to date, and this is quite frustrating; in a community of people who understand how to compromise on an edit, admit when they've made an error or violated a wikipolicy, and move on towards consensus, you have essentially refused to do any of those things in the 9 months you have been editing. It's hard to be truly patient with such an editor. Again, this is about your EDITING, and not about YOU.
Also, allow me to anticipate your response to the passage in the policy which reads: *Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. This policy is intended ONLY to apply when that affiliation does not constitute a conflict of interest! When the affiliation does violate COI, that takes precedence. You edit only one article on WP: an article that refers to an organization you work for; pointing this out is NOT considered a "personal attack", because it deals specifically with your role as an editor on that article, and not with you, as a person. Believe it or not, I understand and sympathize with your situation, more than you would likely imagine, but the bottom line is that the way you are going about participating here has not, over 9 months, been within the guidelines established by the community of people who are working here (this is a matter of public record, and not just my own opinion or interpretation), and my personal sympathy is not going to prevent me from challenging ANY editor who has committed clear violations of policy, especially when they are familiar with the policies, as you often have been. I have even deleted and reverted edits made on WP by personal friends - working on WP is, and always has been, about objective editing, and I'm sorry if you feel that any of this is personal. It is not.
I know that you've been soliciting and receiving advice from admins and others who are trying to help you work within the community's standards. This is a good thing, and I sincerely hope you will take their advice. To the extent that you can do so, I welcome your participation here - we may never be friends, but if you play by the rules, there is no reason we can't work together. Part of that, however, involves doing me the courtesy of NOT accusing me of personal attacks every time I challenge your edits. Sincerely, Dyanega22:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pez1103, the comments by Dyanega that you placed here have been removed by me in response to your very improper deletion of Dyanega's response. It is quite improper and deceptive to place someone else's comments here in such a manner that it appears as if they had done it themselves.[8] It is even more improper to then delete their response, especially considering Dyanega didn't object to your actions, but engaged in a good faith attempt at dialog. It is very hard to assume good faith when you do this type of thing. Please do not copy other's comments here in this manner, and please stop deleting other's comments. If you are not willing to edit in a collaborative manner by engaging in the give and take of discussions here, so be it and follow through by ceasing to edit here at all. It's all or nothing. Either be up front and honest, or don't edit at all. Your manner of dealing with this type of thing is very disruptive. -- Fyslee/talk10:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually -- I never noticed that she had responded -- so my deletion of her comments was completely inadvertant. I copied her comments (from thatcher's sandbox) onto my user page so that I could read them over in light of her comments above and when I was done, I just deleted them, and I guess I deleted her comments too (because I never saw them). I didn't realize that people were keeping such a close eye on my user page. Further, after reading her comments again, I realized that she has a point. Other times, I thought that she has accused me of "not even trying" or "making things up," but the latest quote didn't seem to do this. I do wish that people would just comment on what I say, rather than make comments about me or my motives or my honesty. I thought that we were supposed to assume good faith. Pez110312:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again - I copied her comments here so that I could read them over next to her comments and then delete them. I didn't realize that I am not allowed to do this. I wasn't trying to be disruptive. Actually, Fyslee I was reading over your comments again and am getting very confused. Who deleted her quote from the sandbox? I thought that I did, but you are saying that you did. If that is what happened, then I deleted her response when I thought that I was deleting her sandbox quote -- so it was completely inadvertant -- but I can see how that would look odd. I was going to respond to her comment this morning, but then found all these comments instead. Think about it, tho. If my intention was to eliminate her comments, wouldn't I have deleted the whole section? Pez110312:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It is quite improper and deceptive to place someone else's comments here in such a manner that it appears as if they had done it themselves" -- again - I just copied them so that I could read them over. I wasn't trying to make it appear like anything -- it was just for my personal convenience and I wasn't planning on leaving it on my talk page. Pez110312:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pez, you say that this all was a mix-up, so instead of getting into a long examination of what happened, I'm just going to assume good faith and leave a few pointers here to help you avoid such a situation again. While the rules here have been changed to allow the removal of other's comments (previously that was punishable) from one's own talk page, it is generally a bad idea. You have done this a number of times, which has established a pattern and any further actions of that type then get interpreted in the light of that history. I suggest that you not delete other's comments, especially if you find them objectionable as to POV, and even more so if you consider them personal attacks or gross comments like repugnant words, swearing, etc.. Why? For one thing no one will be able to accuse you of trying to sanitize your talk page so you look better (by hiding warnings and advice). For another thing they won't be able to accuse you of refusing to engage in discussion on uncomfortable subjects. For a third thing, leaving their comments as is will only make them look bad and will not damage you in any way. You can use it as evidence of their bad behavior. So even though you have a right to delete and refactor comments on your own talk page, it would be best to not delete them. Another matter relates to copying other's comments to this page. If you do so (and it can be necessary and convenient during a discussion), make sure it is accompanied by your own comments indicating why you have done so. (If their quotes are embedded in your own comments, then the context will make it obvious what is happening.) I hope that makes some sense to you. Mix-ups do happen here and unfortunate things can result from it. Let's put this behind us and move on. Good luck. -- Fyslee/talk04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a minor note, remember you have your own sandbox: User:Pez1103/Sandbox (and you can have as many sandboxes as you like) where you can do temporary edits without them having as imply as much meaning as posting after a response on you talk page. Herd of Swine05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as long as you appear to be not only hostile to input but actively subverting people's good faith attempts to guide you, it's going to be more of a challenge finding an editor who would be willing to adopt you. Please, consider gentle, considered, civil responses, even to things you don't agree with or wish weren't there. I'll leave you alone now, I know what it feels like to have people bully you on your own talkpage. I'm not meaning to do that, I really want to help you edit constructively, but that may be the way you feel. Anchoress11:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on your talk page, I deleted your comment because it said that I had mentioned that I was afraid that I am "neglecting my child" in my efforts to try to make the article less biased, and I did not want this to be taken out of context. All I meant by this was I was spending time on the computer when I could have been paying attention to her/ie, playing games, watching TV -- not that I wasn't feeding her. I read your advice and took it to heart, however, and did appreciate your feedback. I don't believe that I am "openly hostile". I find it strange that people feel the need to "tattle" on me on your talk page, or constantly question my motives. Pez110311:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor had made a comment about your comment which is what made me concerned. I didn't want the rumor in wikiland to be that I am a bad mom. I am not. Pez110312:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be glad to adopt you. Let me look further into the issues regarding your possible POV conflicts. I'll get back to you in the morning. Abeg92contribs05:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I responded to your posting there. If you wish to continue the discussion, I'd prefer to do it here, rather than there. Dyanega18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have become aware of recent creation of a Morgellons section to the Wikipedia article Delusional parasitosis by a Morgellons article editor that seems to represent a content fork. The differing views that Morgellons may be a manifestation of other known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis, and that Morgellons is a specific condition likely to be confirmed by future research is discussed at length, with many aspects of the issue presented in the Morgellons article which I help edit. The Delusional Parasitosis article's Morgellons section tatement "Dermatologists generally consider this to be a new designation of a form of delusional parasitosis.", results in single POV. Doesn't this violate NPOV policy? Regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, I thought it still must be written in an NPOV-consistent manner. Shouldn't The Morgellons section to the Wikipedia article Delusional Parasitosis be NPOV or deleted? The Delusional parasitosis See also section already has a link to Morgellons. and delutional parasitosis is Wickied in the Morgellons article.
Could you give pointers on how to handle the situation as far as what to do with the apparent bias in the Morgellons section to the Wikipedia article Delusional Parasitosis? Should comments be posted in Delusional Parasitosis or Morgellons article, or on both articles talk pages? Pez110321:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well,... I had already added the CDC reference to balance it, but apparently you felt that was too strong. OK, using the version from the main article is fine too... but to keep that NPOV as you say, we need to include both parts. You truncated it before the balancing reference from the Mayo clinic. To avoid any misunderstanding, I've added that, so now the DP section on Morgellons appropriately matches the agreed-upon main article intro. --ParsifalHello00:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pez, I notice that your adopter User:Abeg92 states on his user page that he is on "semi-wikibreak". That means different things to different people. To see how often he's on-wiki, you can view his contribs. You can find the contribs of any user with the "user contributions" link in the left-side "toolbox" on all user pages. The toolbox also has an "email this user" link on each user's page. As an adoptee you might want to try that method of communicating with him if you need help during times when he's not editing. If you do, you could ask him if that method is OK with him in general.
I don't mean to intrude with my suggestion. Some users have that "email this user" link disabled. But if it's active, it's probably OK to give it a try. Best Wishes... --ParsifalHello07:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.
Herd of Swine 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)