User talk:Rahndo

Re: Just WHO do YOU think YOU are?

Obviously, 'Closenplay' thinks he knows something about Western Poison-oak, however, by his deletion of my "reliable facts", the article on Western Poison-oak is once again apocryphal and wildly inaccurate, simply because 'Closenplay' chose to be the editing God who is unafraid to show how little he actually knows about any one topic, and in particular, Western Poison-oak. He edits at will, simply because 'he can' and not because 'he knows'. I've had a life threatening case of Western Poison-oak and all of the information that I've put into this article comes from hundreds of hours of research and consultation with the appropriate Medical Doctors, National Park Service and Forest Fire consultants. The reason that I was forced to do this research is that the article in Wikipedia about Western Poison-oak (that existed at that time) was full of tripe and non-factual old wives tales, none of which provide appropriate relief, nor are there any "reliable sources" to back up these misconceptions. I wished at that time that the article in Wikipedia had some useful information so I didn't have to suffer as long as I did and I swore that I would update it with 'useful' information, even if it contains the names of recommended products for treatment, which I do not sell, nor make any profit from. In fact, a friend on mine that recently transferred out to Berkeley, CA., got a bad case of Western Poison-oak and asked me what to do. I referred him over to the article that I left on Wikipedia as that had all the information that he needed, but he called me back saying that it contained nothing useful and that is when I realized that some idiot had removed the useful information (thinking himself a good samaritan, no doubt) and had left a bunch of useless and outdated information that is worthless to anyone. After further probing, I found that the product names of Technu and Zandel existed on the "Urushiol-induced contact dermatitis" article and I wondered, why is it okay here, but not there? That's when I cleaned up this article with verifiable facts and condensed the information so that Wikipedia users don't have to follow so many links to get to the information they need. Isn't that what a GOOD encyclopedia is supposed to do? I don't exactly appreciate hours of my work being deleted by uninformed knuckleheads like 'Closenplay', who chose to edit out all the facts and leave unverified tripe. In fact, some of my very own words remain, but they've been edited to the point that they're no longer accurate and are in need of reform. This type of editing is and should be considered VANDALISM, and the next person that deletes my supported entries will be reported for 'editing abuse', including VANDALISM. Got it?

First off, I direct you to WP:EQ and WP:ATTACK, two Wikipedia guidelines you should definitely read before leaving notes like this on people's talk pages. You can disagree with me without getting personal about it. Second, I did not question the validity of the information. The problem is, you're not backing up the information you're adding to the article with any references from reliable sources. I'm not the first editor who's had issue with your promotion of various products in the Western Poison-oak article. If you're going to add information like that, it has to be verifiable and from a reliable source. Just because you tried different things and some worked for you isn't good enough; that's what Wikipedia calls "original research" and it's not permitted. If you can't find anything to back up your information, it doesn't belong in the article. Another thing to remember is you do not own the articles you edit, nor what you add to the article; if someone changes it in good faith, that is not an "abusive edit". I strongly urge you to read the articles I linked to in this comment, then find some solid references to back up your edits. If you do so, the likelihood of someone reverting your edits will decrease dramatically. Good day to you sir. Closenplay 17:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Western Poison-oak

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Western Poison-oak. Thank you. Will ^(talk) 17:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rahndo's Rebuttal to Closenplay regarding Western Poison-oak.

I may not know all the wikipedia guidelines and for this, I apologize. Also for getting personal, however, hours of work went into this revision and believe me, until you've had Poison-oak, you don't realize just how PERSONAL it is. I will not apologize, however, for the nature of your editing of information, particularly because you've edited this article (including my own words) until it's no longer accurate (factual) and the statements that you've left behind cannot be supported by any scientific or 'reliable sources'. So tell me, as I'm very interested to know, just where is all the other information in this article that is BACKED UP by references from reliable sources? You know, I don't see any. Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see any footnotes or references anywhere. Most everything in the article that you left behind are old wives tales without any reliable sources or justification. You may not be the first editor that was opposed to my adding product information, but again, these other editors have most likely NEVER HAD Poison-oak and know very little about it, for if they did, they would have realized the value of the 'reliable information' left behind for future victoms of Poison-oak that were looking for relief. One editor actually accused me of creating these links to make money, which is ridiculous, so I've removed the links and kept the information so that users can Google the product to get REAL information instead of using Wikipedia, even though Product information (Tecnu & Zanfel) is okay to display on the article entitled "Urushiol-induced contact dermatitis". Why the double standards? You've already made the presumptuous assumption that the only reason that I've listed these products is that I happen to try them, or in your own words,.."Just because you tried different things and some worked for you isn't good enough; that's what Wikipedia calls "original research" and it's not permitted. If you can't find anything to back up your information, it doesn't belong in the article." So that's YOUR opinion and as I said before, WHERE is all the other BACKUP for the previous misleading information in this article, such as using "alcohol" to wash the oil off. This 'home remedy' is so outdated and yet its allowed in Wikipedia without any reliable BACKUP? Please enlighten me. I don't see any information in this article with any reliable information to back it up, particularly, how YOU edited it. My guess is that your knowledge about the subject matter is reasonably scant and you seem more concerned with your duties of wiping out SPAM and removing useful NEW "unsubstantiated" information in lieu of OLD information that is APOCRYPHAL and WILDLY INACCURATE, having NO reliable information to back any of it up, either. Every item that was incorrect has been corrected and every product that has been recommended comes from the recommendation of the Medical Community, the National Park Service, the Forest Service and the Fire Fighters that deal with this stuff everytime a fire breaks out in California. Should I throw the pamphlet out that the dermatologist provided me about Poison-oak/ivy and should I ignore the recommendations of my own Physician that have been stated in this article. Yes, I tried three of the products that I mentioned in my revised version, but at the recommendation of a Board Certified Physician and a Dermatologist as well as consulting with the aforementioned entities. Are you saying that previous versions and YOUR unsubstantiated version of Poison-oak anecdotes are more reliable than the written advice and prescriptions of Board Certified Physicians? What do I need to do to show that this information is reliable? I don't see any useful references anywhere in this article and I'm unaware about HOW to leave footnotes. Tell me how and where to do it and I'd be happy to substantiate it. The fact is, that having nearly died from a Western Poison-oak forest fire last fall, I've spent hundreds of hours researching the topic and I now consider myself one of the leading authorities on this subject and will be publishing my own article on it, based on facts, not old wives tales. Such research doesn't come easily. As I said before, I think that people need to be able to go to Wikipedia and get USEFUL & reliable information about the subject, not outdated folklore, which equally has no references. Finally, I don't really feel that you edited this article in "good faith" as you don't know the severity of this plant and you ended up "misquoting me" by changing the wording around. Nobody quotes ME but ME. You genuinely seem more concerned about making Wikipedia a safe, neutrally homogenous and SPAM free encyclopedia encased within the confines of its own rules instead of an editor that actually does research and provides helpful and vital information from the people who actually KNOW, for the people who actually NEED IT! Your point has been noted but until you can provide the information that I've asked for, i.e. show reliable information sources for all the information in the previous edition and/or YOUR edition, the revised version stays, otherwise, I'll request that you provide reliable information to back up everything else in this article. Considering HOW you based your reasons for making YOUR edition, I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

If you redirected all the energy you put into this invective and did some research, I'm sure you could find at least a few reliable sources to back up your claims. Since you seem uninterested in reading about how to improve your edits, I'll spell it out for you: find references in major magazines, newspapers, medical journals, etc. that basically say what you're saying, and then add them as references in the article. If the products you endorse so wholeheartedly are indeed recommended by the medical establishment at large, it shouldn't be any problem for you to find it in print. Closenplay 19:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Final Follow Up on unqualified Western Poison Oak Revisions

I don't know why you're bothering to post all that information on my talk page. Just put it in the article. As for thinking that I "should have READ the two already-existing External Links"—wrong; you should have cited them as backing up your edits in the first place. Please do everyone (including yourself) a favor and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. And, once again, "the written advise [sic] and prescriptions of Board Certified Physicians and the recommendations of the Park and Forest service" is original research if it is not published and verifiable. Closenplay 21:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)