User talk:Robertinventor/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Wikipedia

So this post was fake. You started out saying "I'm listening" and then you proceeded to make bullshit arguments. In other words, not listening. So i walked away from that conversation. In that discussion somewhere you said you have edited WP a long time - I looked at your edit count and you have about 17K edits since 2006. That is a long time! And somehow you never figured this place out. That will make it hard for you to see it fresh. Hm.

If you do want to understand how Wikipedia works with health content - if you actually want to listen and learn - ping me and I will explain it to you from the ground up. If you don't understand the fundamentals, I know that things seem bizarre and arbitrary but if you are actually grounded on how the community functions, they make complete sense. Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Others found my comments there interesting and continued to respond after you said you wouldn't reply any more. Thanks for the offer, but I am not interested in engaging in a conversation with you about it separately from the talk page. If you have more points to make please make them on the talk page for everyone to read and comment on. From previous experience I didn't have much hope of the conversation getting anywhere and am going to bail out unless there is some major development as in someone else bringing new views to the debate. It is of course your right and perogative to walk away from an argument, and I say so myself in my reply there :). But you can't tell others to stop commenting and I got a fair number of extra replies after you walked away from it. I'm glad to hear you are going to try to find more sources to back up the Washington Post article. As I say there, I don't think wikipedia should include statements that are based on a journalist saying "just google it and you see lots of search results saying xxx", because of the prevalence of trolling online, as well as individuals who flood the search space by repeating the same views over and over in different forums, and there is no guideline that supports this as a valid form of WP:RS in wikipedia either, at least so far nobody has shared such a guideline to the conversation. So if you can remove that source from the article and the sentence that uses it as a cite, that would be progress. As for including the research that links Morgellons with bovine digital dermatitis, we have had this discussion before.

I don't expect this to change but I think the way you are interpreting WP:MEDRS is wrong, I think an article can have multiple sections, some covered by WP:MEDRS and others not, and you agree, after all the washington post article is most decidedly not WP:MEDRS. So, as long as it is labelled clearly, which section is which, then why can't a medical article include WP:RS that is notable but not WP:MEDRS so long as it is labelled clearly as controversial? So why can't it have a section describing the WP:RS on the hypothesis that it is a disease related to bovine digital dermatitis, so long as it is labelled clearly as controversial? That is the nub of the dispute there. I don't see how any amount of asking for clarification of guidelines is going to help. You've already said your say there, and I've said my say. You call my arguments bullshit but others there find them cogent. I think now we just have to leave it to others to see what they say. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The way I use MEDRS is how the community intends it to be used.

Your questions are rhetorical, not authentic.

I offered to explain how things work generally here in WP. You seem to have not understood that, and instead are just continuing to base arguments on your ideas about how to write and think about things generally in the world (which have nothing to do with how Wikipedia works), and as I said at the Talk page, that is not interesting to me. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay I assure you that I am being authentic but when you have to say that you are being authentic several times and are not believed, it's time to stop. Thanks!. Robert Walker (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

You are authentically arguing for what you want. Your questions are rhetorical. When i took your questions as authentic at the talk page, you ignored my answer and just kept arguing, and just kept arguing from grounds that have no foundation in how WP operates. You have not acknowledged that WP's policies and guidelines form the foundation for rational discussion about content and sourcing here in WP but instead just keep talking based on your own assumptions about how to go about medical writing. The one time you started to, you just grabbed some line that justified what you wanted to do in the first place.

You don't understand how WP works and you are not interested in learning. There is no point in continuing this discussion. It is exactly like talking to a climate change denier who refuses to understand how science works. You refuse to understand how WP works. This is a very weird place - the very epistemology is not the same as out there in the rest of the world. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look again. I referred to the guidelines throughout the discussion and also referred to them here as well. Robert Walker (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope; you came here very much wanting to use primary sources to critique the CDC findings (the Masters thesis which you found persuasive) and promote the Middelveen work per first comment and in your second comment where you said "There has to be some way that it can be mentioned in the article". And again in your third comment which ended " Surely there must be some way that you can do it, some acceptable way to mention notable WP:RS research of this type?" Do you see? Each time you just made arguments to do what you came to the article to do. And as you noted here you figured out what content you wanted to add, based on the way you always operate, for instance when you write your blog.

You have never addressed the spirit nor letter of MEDRS nor shown an interest in even understanding it. You are not arguing from within the foundations of WP. I will throw this to you - please have a look at the lead of the essay I started called WP:Why MEDRS? and the first section on secondary sources generally (it is far too long but it says what needed saying) Maybe that will help you. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I do understand the motivation behind WP:MEDRS, at least I think so. That in the particular area of medicine then there's a risk of people coming to wikipedia and treating the articles as health care advice, and so you have to be careful about that. And that there is a big gap between some scientific finding that seems to show some connection and actual medical approved treatments. That of course is true, and I don't dispute that at all.

The problem with the Morgellons article though is that it presents it as if the whole thing is settled, that all scientists agrees that Morgellons is a form of delusional parasitosis. And that is not true. There is a significant minority of scientists, a dozen or so, who disagree and don't think that the CDC has closed the case, who continue to research it. And what's more, the CDC did not prove that Morgellons is a form of delusional parasitosis either. So that makes wikipedia inaccurate.

I understand that their research should not be presented in a form that could lead it to be taken as medical advice. But I don't think it is right to just not mention it at all. We have precedent here that Chronic Lyme disease is mentioned although it is also only accepted by a minority of scientists in humans (though generally accepted as a disease of cattle). It's rather similar. This hypothesis is only accepted by a few scientists, in humans, though it is a recognized disease of cattle. The example of Lyme_disease_controversy shows that WP:MEDRS is not a blanket prohibition of ever mentioning research that is not covered by WP:MEDRS as this is not covered by it either. That is of course a more notable controversy, but it also has a complete article to it. I'm just suggesting a short addition to the Morgellons article.

I also understand about primary and secondary sources. That I do find a cogent point. The research here is mainly in primary sources. The only good secondary source is Harry Schone's MSc thesis. This brings back memories. It's for UCLA UCL which is one of the top four academic institutions in Europe. So that stands for something. But according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP then it says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." And the problem there is that like many theses, it has had no academic citations at least not in google scholar. But it does seem very strange to me that an MSc thesis from UCL is not acceptable as a secondary source in this topic area, a thesis that requires a lot of careful research, supervised, examined, and at least a year of work (I'm not sure if it is a 1 or 2 year thesis), and yet, you can include remarks based on an article by a journalist who probably spent half an hour scanning google search results and says "when you search google for xxx you find ...". Is there not some guideline or some way it can be included? That's not me trying to game wikipedia or trying to force something into wikipedia. It's just using common sense and then saying "Is there not something in that vast list of guidelines that covers this situation?" Robert Walker (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A Msc thesis is a very weak secondary source (not even sure it can be classified as a secondary). If you are working as a Wikipedian your discussion about biomedical content in WP is limited to MEDRS sources - the best ones you can get your hands on. Those are what we summarize in WP. Have you read the MEDRS sources now cited in the article? Real question. You haven't cited them - not one time. Why not? (real question) Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes - but an article in the Washington Post is a very very very weak secondary source, especially when it is just based on a google search. Sometimes a weak secondary source is all you have. If you mean the CDC report, yes, I read it all the way through, carefully. I think I did mention it. BTW in case you don't know it, Harry Schone's thesis is here [1] as I didn't give a link to it. He analyses issues with the CDC report in it. What he says there accurately summarizes what the report says. Robert Walker (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether an MSc thesis counts as secondary I think would depend on the thesis and context. It's secondary in the sense that it is commenting on the CDC report and that it's a meta level discussion, and that it does a review of the literature on the subject. His main aim is not to establish a particular view on the CDC report but as he says in the conclusion "In this essay I have endeavoured to show how instructive this case can be in demonstrating the functioning life of a modern, contentious, chronic disease. Morgellons teaches us lessons about how conflict plays out between patient communities and health care professionals, and how those communities perform a second (though not secondary) pastoral role." - I think it is about as uninvolved in the topic itself and the research as you can be and he is not promoting any particular research in the topic area there and is not a researcher researching into the disease but an independent academic researcher who is interested in it as a topic in the philosophy of medicine which is his topic area. Robert Walker (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

WaPo is not used to source any biomedical information. No, I do not mean the CDC report. You are not even looking at the article, nor working from nor even addressing MEDRS. Please answer the two questions I asked once you have looked at the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I read the article. I didn't read every cite. "Not the CDC report" leaves that rather wide open, what you might be referring to. Robert Walker (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You are so distant from understanding WP that I cannot even communicate with you; you don't understand what I write when I use standard terms to describe things. The key biomedical information is in the "Medical perspective" section; there are 5 solid MEDRS sources there - sources like that are what ground Wikipedia content about health. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There isn't a medical perspectives section. Please, why all the insults? Can't we have a polite discussion with an element of mutual respect? Robert Walker (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And when I researched on it for my Morgellons article, I did search for more recent research on the subject after the CDC report. There was almost nothing. Marianne Middleveen and the others involved in the same area of research are very active with papers published most years. Nobody else seems to be researching it at all. I found one article that was very low quality by a researcher who claimed on the basis of analysing fibres extracted from a single patient to have disproved the spirochetes hyypothesis. It is easy to find with a google search but it is so low quality that I didn't think it was worth mentioning, based on a single patient. I didn't find any research that claimed to prove that it is a form of delusional parasitosis. Maybe you have found something I've missed - if so please just tell me what your cite is rather than ask me if I have read the article. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In my very first comment to you, I cited MEDRS and provided a link to the pubmed search that produces MEDRS sources. The first five reviews there are now cited in the article. PMID 24005827, PMID 22250620, PMID 19878403, PMID 19822895, and PMID 19681520. You are incapable of listening, and you have not cited a single one of those reviews at any point in any remark you have made here in WP.

I am done here. I came here to help you, but you have just continued arguing. This is not a productive use of my time. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well bye. I don't know why though, or what has irritated you so much. I've read most of those before during my literature search for the article I wrote for my Science20 blog. Only one of them postdates the CDC survey, the first one in the results, by Halverston. Unfortunately, all I can see of that one is its title, maybe it is behind a paywall for me? It's title doesn't mention Morgellons, maybe the text does? I don't know what you expected me to say about them. Or did you just send me that link to prove that there are no significant results on pubmed after the CDC study?? Robert Walker (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

All you said in your talk page comment is "I didn't find any mention of the spirochette hypothesis there.". I responded to that. You didn't ask me to comment on the papers that turned up in the search. I don't know what else you expected of me or expect of me. It is often easy to have communication glitches, in text, and I really have no idea why you got so upset by my responses. I was not at all upset by anything you said. Just expressing different views that's all, in what seems to me a civilized debate except that every second post or so you insult me for no apparent reason. That is how this conversation seems to me from my viewpoint. Robert Walker (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This BTW is a pubmed search of spirchetes + Morgellons which turns up a couple of the peer reviewed articles I already shared on your timeline. So I don't know why you say that you found nothing there on that search phrase. Something to do with the spelling?? I notice you spell it spirochette when the correct spelling is spirochete, could that be it? [2] Robert Walker (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to add a short summary of some of my main points here to the talk page for Morgellons. I'd wanted to have the discussion there all along but you wanted to discuss here. In the circumstances, I think a short summary there should be okay and appropriate. Mainly I'll share the Harry Schones bit + this pubmed search for Morgellons + spirochete. As before it is of course your perogative to choose not to reply to my comments :). Robert Walker (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read again my opening comment. I very explicitly did not come here to discuss the Morgellons article, but instead with the intention of explaining to you how WP works. For biomedical information, acceptable sources per WP:MEDRS are literature reviews in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical/scientific bodies.' Primary sources are not OK. The link I have provided to a pubmed search, twice now, shows only literature reviews. What I actually wrote on the Talk page was: "Per WP:MEDRS we base biomedical content on reviews in the biomedical literature or statements from major medical/scientific bodies (like the CDC). here is a pubmed search for reviews about Morgellons. I didn't find any mention of the spirochette hypothesis there. If there is a MEDRS source that discusses the spirochette hypothesis, would be happy to include that content - please cite it. Please do not take up time/space here on the Talk page bringing refs that don't comply with MEDRS. If you don't understand MEDRS, please ask."

In case you are unaware (which would be surprising) a paper presenting research results is not a literature review.

You have refused to listen to anything I or anyone else here has said to you. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't understand that your link only listed reviews. Please don't confuse refusal to listen with not understanding, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

While I am happy for your sake and the community's sake that you seem to have now finally listened, you have absolutely refused to listen up to now. I and others have written the word "reviews" to you a zillion times. You are not stupid and you understood the difference between a review and a paper presenting research results before today. The problem was that you weren't listening. Maybe you can hear this now - you, as advocates typically do - arrived at the topic with very firm pre-fixed ideas and wanted to convince everyone - that was your goal -- and you didn't actually read and listen to what I and others were saying. You just ignored what we repeatedly wrote, in plain and clear English. "here is a pubmed search for reviews about Morgellons" is plain and clear English. You should not have to be threatened with a TBAN to actually read what other people write to you, and pause long enough to actually listen to it. But again, I am glad you have listened now. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, first, please can I ask you to give me an extra warning if you think I can be banned for talking here instead of on the Morgellons talk page, as I was banned from another talk page by an editor who took me to a community ban without warning me first. If you think talking here will lead to a ban I will stop right away and I have no wish to disrupt wikipedia. And I do find the way wikipedia works in this particular area where there are disputed ideas very strange I think people here are way too ready to ban people just for talking on a talk page in reasonable discussion who don't do any attempt to edit the page itself and who are polite and civilized in everything they say. But if you are still listening to me, I'd like to correct what you just said on a couple of points.

I've said many times that I understand what you are saying about MEDRS requiring reviews. The confusion is just that I didn't link that PubMed search you gave with the later discussion of need of review for WP:MEDRS which lead us to talking at cross purposes. The word review in that sentence was easily missed - this happens frequently in online conversations just as in real world conversations that people just don't see things / hear things. It is true that I did not read that sentence as carefully as I could have.

The PubMed search I did was not meant to show that it was WP:MEDRS. My reason for wanting to mention this research is for the same reason that you decided to include the Atlantic magazine as a cite, as non WP:MEDRS research that is highly relevant to the topic. It is not pseudoscience so I don't really know why you think I can be banned under this ruling on pseudoscience, as the PubMed search shows, there is serious on going scientific research, true science, not pseudo science, into this topic. It also shows that the CDC case is not considered closed by some scientists and I think that is relevant to the topic of the article as it says that the case is closed, by saying that Morgellons is Delusional Parasitosis, without any qualification. The cites I give show clearly that this diagonosis of DP is still disputed by some scientists.

I am not an advocate as I said, don't have Morgellons, have no connection to the research. I am in a similar situation to Harry Schones, approaching it as an independent science blogger in my case. There is almost nothing published on Morgellons in the scientific literature since the CDC report except this research. There are no reviews of the topic in your list of reviews, which only included one review after the CDC and that was immediately after CDC so the reviews don't cover this research. The connection with bovine digital dermatitis was only made in 2013 (I think it was, would need to check), once Marianne Midleveen, a veterinary microbiologist, noted the connection and started research on the topic.

I still think that it could be mentioned according to the guidelines as I've understood them so far - indeed the one sentence of the article that mentions the results of a journalists google search also mentions that some people think that there is an association with chronic lyme disease. So there can't be an absolute prohibition on mentioning something like this in some form as there is already a mention in the article. But I think that should be more accurately stated and I think also that the Atlantic journalism is not WP:RS at all in this topic area and should be removed and this used as cites instead along with whatever other sources you can find to replace the material in the Atlantic story, if there is anything WP:RS that says the same thing as the Atlantic story. That is my case.

But I understand that you think I could be banned or get other sanctions for saying anything more on this topic area on the article talk page. I take such things very seriously having previously been topic banned in a similar situation as you can see from this talk page. So I will not continue once threatened (your words) with a possibility of a tban. In the previous dispute I'd have stopped immediately also if I'd had prior warning. I thank you for having the decency to warn me first - which editors here don't always do. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I will not count how many times I and others wrote "reviews", but it was very many. you didn't understand because you didn't take the time to read and consider what was written to you. that is what is frustrating.

I have warned you that DS are at play here. If you continue ignoring other people and keep making arguments based on what "you think" instead of based on the spirit and letter of the relevant policies and guidelines I will seek to have you TBANed for WP:BLUDGEONing the talk page and not listening to anyone. if you want to avoid that, actually take the time to listen and understand what people are trying to communicate to you.

If I write to you again here it will be to give you notice that I have filed an AE case. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay that's clear and once again thanks for the warning. So I can't continue the discussion here either. I will not ignore this warning and have no wish to be involved in an AE case. It is not even something that I am particularly involved in myself, though I feel for and sympathize with the Morgellons sufferers who messge me about it since my article was published. Robert Walker (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

(exhale) You can do whatever you want; I cannot forbid you, and don't want to forbid you, from participating in WP. But you have to actually listen to other people and not keep ignoring them and steamrollering onward with whatever you showed up to say. That behavior is frustrating as hell and I am not going to put up with it at the Morgellons page anymore. And again I have no interest - none - in discussing Morgellons with you here. I only came here to your Talk page, to explain MEDRS to you. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course you can't forbid me as you are not an admin (I don't think). But you don't want me to continue this discussion, not just with me, but with anyone else on the talk page although I had some responses favourable to what I was saying. And I most definitely don't want this what seems a very minor dispute to me to escalate to an AE sanction discussion. So I have no choice. It is decent of you to warn me first. Robert Walker (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no "discussion." There is you showing up with a bunch of primary sources and an MS thesis and pushing and pushing and PUSHING' to include content based on them, and experienced editors saying "those don't comply with MEDRS, look at these strong MEDRS sources" and you ignoring that. That is not a policy and guideline based discussion. It is you being disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay I understand that that's how you see it. Robert Walker (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Logging out for a few days

Just to say to anyone who wants to talk to me - I'm going to log out of wikipedia for a few days. The reason is that if I am logged in I will get notifications whenever anyone mentions me in the Morgellons page dispute. I have had clear warnings that if I continue to talk there then they will take me to AE and I most definitely do not want a topic ban. Especially because I have a proposal on meta that I want to be able to publicize in a neutral way here on wikipedia and I can't do that if I have a topic ban against me, because of the nature of the proposal. I must not do anything that could lead to a TBan however minor it is, even restricted to a single talk page. I find that in these situations any kind of response at all eventually becomes something that others get irritated by and they see it as reason to ban me for saying too much. It's hard not to respond when you get message alerts - and the easiest way to forget about it all is to log out. If I need to edit wikipedia, I have another account that I set up for use in a similar situation before.

If anyone wants to contact me, you can do so via email. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• about your last comment here and your remark above. It is entirely your choice to withdraw. I would have preferred that you would have taken the time to understand MEDRS, and act accordingly - namely, read the current reviews and base your discussion on what they say, giving appropriate WEIGHT to various views based on them, per NPOV. In other words, edit like a Wikipedian. It kind of says a lot, that rather than engaging with the policies and guidelines and working within them, you will not change your approach and choose to withdraw instead. Please think about what that means. I am sorry you are unwilling to work within this.. actual... context, which is not your blog or any other place. It is Wikipedia, which does place obligations on you; every time you log in, you consent to the Terms of Use which obligate you to follow community policies and guidelines. It is not optional. And the policies and guidelines create a context that is kind of beautiful - there is a really interesting and useful interlocking among them, that enables all the work we do here. It is really a shame that you will not engage with them. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You might find this useful. User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. I don't know how to help you understand how Wikipedia works. I wish i could. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, I'm back now. You have to understand that I have recently been through a very stressful topic ban for something I thought was not at all justified. I am not permitted to talk about it as a banned editor, to do so would lead to an increase of the ban period. As well as that, I have been involved with a project on meta to help topic banned editors to understand what they can and can't do and to help with the issues of extreme stress, sometimes even having to stop work, that some of them experience, with no support from wikipedia, indeed they are banned from talking about their topic here at all, never mind talking about such issues. I wasn't so badly affected but I encountered others who were, to an immense degree. I made a proposal that I think will be of benefit to both the banned editors and to wikipedia. But I am not permitted to publicize it here, for neutral discussion, for as long as I am banned myself. My topic ban expires at the end of November. Until then I can't mention it anywhere even on my own talk page. The other main editor who was involved in developing it is similarly limited - no surprise since it is a matter that is easiest to appreciate ifyou have been Tbanned or blocked yourself.

Most of those who haven't can't even see what the issues are. You have to experienced what happens when you are tbanned and then try to ask even simple questions about what the limits of the ban are. You can't because you can only mention them to the closing admin, who is often far too busy to answer questions and to mention it anywhere else leads to an increase of your tban. I was told by another editor that even trying to discuss your own ban - or block in their case - with the closing editor with no other action can lead to an increase of the block period. So you have to be careful when talking to them too. When I asked my closing admin what seemed to me a straightforward question I was told to stop this line of discussion immediately, a clear threat saying I couldn't ask those questions of them. I don't know what the consequences would have been if I'd tried to continue.

After experiencing it for myself I'm not at all surprised that some people, especially those of low education, low IQ, or young children, find the whole thing very stressful and difficult to deal with.

I haven't said enough here for you to find it so I think this post is okay. So, this is a period when I have to be especially careful. I just can't risk another topic ban that would delay the chance to publicize this initiative here on wikipedia for another six months or more.

So I don't know how serious you were about taking me to AE, you sounded pretty serious, and I also don't know what I might say that would lead to you doing so as in the case when I actually was banned, it just came out of the blue and I had no idea that the editor concerned was even considering a tban until he posted saying he had taken out the case. He didn't give me a clear warning as you did. In the circumstances I can't engage in a leisurely friendly talk about WP:MEDRS and why I think that what I'm talking about is not covered by it, and why you think it is. Hope you understand! Robert Walker (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I am very serious about taking you to AE.

You didn't respond to the heart of what I wrote; it appears you have a very hard time actually hearing what other people write to you - if you don't actually read and take the time to listen, of course you don't understand. This is also what happened when you were trying to understand your TBAN - you were told very clearly what the boundaries are and bizarrely you just didn't take the time to read the simple words and listen to them. It is also what happened with regard to your not even acknowledging that I and others had said "reviews" to you many times.

If you want to be productive here - heck if you want to keep your editing privileges - you are going to have to create some new practices. Like slowing down and actually reading what people write to you and asking yourself, "what was that person trying to say to me?" and actually trying to come up with an answer, based on what they actually wrote, before responding to what they wrote (not - responding with yet another iteration of what you came to the page to say) Your consistent failure to do that is why you are under one TBAN and on the edge of a second.

I have no interest in discussing the Morgellons article with you here. None - as I have written that to you multiple times. You are too busy arguing and not listening - even now you want to argue with me about why the sources you wanted to use on the Morgellons article were OK per MEDRS. They weren't - and you don't understand MEDRS and you don't understand how this place works.

For the last time I came here to try to help you understand MEDRS generally and how WP works generally. You have so far been unteachable. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So you want to teach me. But only under threat that you will take me to AE right away if I speak out of line when responding to your comments or if I don't seem to understand what you are saying. It's just not a basis on which this can continue. An honest mistake on my part or any difference of opinion in the discussion would lead you to taking me to AE.

Do you see that? Even writing this, I wonder if saying this much will lead you to take me to AE. If you want to help someone who you think has misunderstood wikipedia policies, I recommend - just on the basis of what this attempt to teach me has felt like from my side, that you listen to them more, and that you allow for the possibility that human beings read things differently, miss details, make mistakes etc. And don't threaten to ban them if they speak out of line in their replies. Because if you do, it simply can't be a teaching situation any more.

Also - maybe this will help a bit? Wikipedia is not designed with a hierarchical structure such that experienced editors who have been part of it for a long time have votes in RfCs that carry more weight, or have to be listened to as overriding editors of articles. It was deliberately designed as a community encyclopedia where everyone has equal voice, even though that is awkward at times. It has its plus sides and its downsides. But nobody is an "editor in chief". You may be expert on the guidelines in your topic area, and can help others to understand those guidelines, but in the end, the content is shaped by the consensus of everyone. Even the guidelines were evolved through consensus decisions, and are interpreted in that way too. So on going discussion of the implications of the guidelines, or whether indeed they even apply at all to a particular article or section, that's par for the course is my understanding.

So, it shouldn't be a case of one person telling another person how the guidelines have to be interpreted though they can help a lot by talking about how they are customarily interpreted, referring to past community decisions on the topic, similar cases, and such like. I hope this helps. Robert Walker (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to log out again for a few days. One thing I found last time around that just logging in briefly and commenting then logging out helps to reduce the pace of interaction and make it less likely for things to flare up out of control. It didn't quite work last time, but it did help a bit. Time to go as I've written a fair bit today :). Especially with you still threatening me with AE if I happen to speak out of turn on my own talk page in your view. Robert Walker (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Logged back in, as I felt I've got enough distance already: @Jytdog:, to summarize, to continue this conversation, we need

• You are willing to listen to my reasons as well as me listen to yours, so we can have a proper dialog.
• You drop the threat to take me to AE if I speak out of turn, at least on my own talk page.

Also can we come to an agreement that the material I wish to include is not pseudoscience like chemtrails, as it is published in medically respectable journals? It is minority view science. If you agree that then the warning you posted on my talk page shouldn't apply to it and I'll be able to breathe a lot easier :).

I think I understand your reasons and I've never said that the research I want to include satisfies WP:MEDRS so not sure why you want to explain in more detail what WP:MEDRS means. You don't seem to understand mine, at least that's what it seems like to me (especially since there is a sentence related to it already in the article based on much less substantial cites). Robert Walker (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you are still not listening. Consistently not listening is not "an honest mistake". Again, the problems that led to your TBAN, the problem you had understanding your TBAN, the problems in the discussion at the Morgellons Talk page about Morgellons, and the problems in the discussion here about general editing in WP are one problem - you don't read what other people write and actually deal with it, and then you say "I don't understand". About AE - what I have said, is that if you continue to ignore MEDRS and NPOV at the Morgellons page and keep pushing to add content that ignores MEDRS sources and is supported only by poor sources - content that that violates NPOV/FRINGE - I will take you to AE. I have never said I would take you to AE over this discussion here on your Talk page about general editing in WP (which is not about Morgellons). You are not listening even with regard to this thing that appears to be so important to you.

about who has, or rather what kind of arguments have, "authority" in WP: Wikipedia is a not a democracy where anything anybody says has equal authority. I will again point you to WP:CLUE as I have before. You do not understand Wikipedia nor how it works. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a democracy. It's you who aren't listening there. Where is the word democracy used above? I said that e.g. in an RfC everyone's vote or voice is equal. Of course what they say is then evaluated by the closing editor according to its merits. But they all have a voice and nobody can be told by anyone else what they have to say in an RfC. That's not a democracy, I never said it was, I know it's not done by counting votes.

And you don't know anything about the reasons for my previous TBan AFAIK, or what the questions were that I asked the closing editor and didn't get answers to - you weren't involved in it - or were you? That's what I meant when I say that to me it seems you are the one who is not listening. And no mention at all of what I said about the material not being pseudoscience. Again you don't seem to have heard that. Robert Walker (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What makes it two way is if you ask for clarification when the other person says something that seems to you to be nonsense, rather than just telling them that it is nonsense. Because it could be that they are clumsy in how they explain what they are saying, or that you haven't understood it, there are many reasons for communication glitches, especially in text like this. And communication like this works best if you start off with the assumption that they at least think they have something sensible to say and that possibly they might actually be saying something sensible. So if it doesn't seem that way, the first thing is to ask for clarification, not jump on them for saying nonsense. Does that make sense? Robert Walker (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

no, it doesn't make sense. You'll figure out why WP keeps blowing up in your face, of you won't. I can't do anything more to try to help you. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay. But it could also be a problem with Wikipedia. There are a lot of people saying there are issues that Wikipedia has to deal with that seem related to these issues I've had, trying to get things included that common sense would suggest should be included. For whatever reason.

About the only one I can mention at this point without risking a TBan, of the issues I've noticed, is that Wikipedia has no mention at all of the possibility of microbial life or lichens on the surface of Mars.

There are many NASA announcements and many research papers published each year about this topic, and people doing Mars simulation experiments where they have shown that one microbe after another, and even some lichens could survive in various Mars surface conditions, if those habitats exist. Yet the Life on Mars article flat out says that there is a published proof that life on Mars is impossible. The alleged proof there uses out of date research based on the idea of a totally sterile surface with only dormant microbes. I've tried for years to get this material included. This seems totally bizarre if you are someone who follows all the latest research on this topic, as I am also many of my friends, some of them professional exobiologists. Wikipedia is about six years out of date, doesn't take account of any of the research since 2008 in this topic area. I think they will only mention it when they actually discover life on Mars if they do.

It's not an issue for me personally. I have my Science20 blog, I have quora, I have my kindle books, and many people who appreciate my writing, and lots of readers. There are many places which are an outlet for me to write on these topics. It is just that it is so sad to see Wikipedia be so limited compared to what it could be. In some areas it is excellent. Robert Walker (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, this is a problem for some people who are accomplished elsewhere, when they come here. They cannot see Wikipedia for what it is, and even when people tell them, they cannot hear it. The problem must be Wikipedia's. I mentioned above that when you "get it", the way all the policies and guidelines work together make profound sense, in this context. You just don't get it, and at this point you are like the hear no evil, see no evil monkey with your ears and eyes shut tight. Unteachable. It happens sometimes. That is what is sad, as you ~could~ contribute a lot and be happy and productive here, too. The only thing in your way, is you. Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I do contribute a lot. I contribute to sections on microtonal music, on rhythns, on maths, I wrote 50% of the Planetary protection article and most of the Interplanetary contamination article. I also wrote most of the Hexany article. I'm quite an active contributor here and produce a lot of good work. I am happy and productive in those topic areas. I recently did extensive work on the Regular Diatonic Tunings article.

I was more productive here in the past and stopped taking so much part here a few years back, one spring, when much of my work for the previous several months, done with discussion with other editors, was deleted by an editor who disagreed with me in a content dispute. His reasons for removing it were mainly based on ad hominem allegations, completely untrue. I now use much more caution and don't contribute so much as a result. A natural response I think when you discover that anyone might suddenly decide they want to delete most of your work on some topic, and if they can get other editors upset and worked up about what they claim you are doing, that gives them carte blanche here to do almost anything. So, I am always aware that if I do contribute a lot, someone might do that to me, and there may not be much I can do about it. But I do still contribute a fair bit.

My experiences are not an isolated incident. I have many friends who run into these issues. One had a similar experience to me, all his work in the Buddhism topic area was suddenly removed in a couple of weeks by another editor who similarly got editors worked up by saying unfounded things about his work - that is a year's worth of working on it every weekend, excellent top quality work in my view. And it's not the guidelines that are the problem. It's individuals who have fixed ideas about articles. E.g. with Life on Mars there is no guideline that you have to exclude material on the present day habitability of Mars. That is just a decision of one editor who is influential in that topic area. I can no longer talk about the Morgellons article without risking a TBan but I don't think that is an issue of guidelines either, it's an issue of how they are being interpreted in this particular article. You may have precedent in other articles behind you, I don't know, but that you include a sentence that says what I want included but with much weaker cites than the ones I gave show it is not an absolute ban and surely should be a topic that can be discussed and perhaps subject to an RfC. So it is the particular editors on that article that are enforcing a ban on speaking on the talk page, on the basis of the pseudoscience ruling you mention, extending it to a topic that surely is not pseudoscience as the articles are published in high quality peer reviewed medical journals. But to try to argue that case is to risk being banned, and I don't want to be taken to AE at all, and it is not even a major topic of interest for me, so I am not going to do it.

It was the same also for the topic that I am currently TBanned for and which I can't mention but you can find it easily on this page. I am not permitted even to hint on the reasons I would challenge that TBan - to do so would risk immediate increased sanctions - unless I file an appeal which I'm not going to attempt. So can't say more there. Here on wikipedia you don't hear much of this because anyone who says such things as the things I would want to say and am not permitted to say gets banned. But off wiki there is a lot of talk about this. Also articles published about this issue in mainstream media. Wikipedia is shaped by a small percentage of the most active editors who are familiar with the guidelines and rules in detail and can run rings around newbies with their arguments from guidelines - and some of them are good, but there are others that could benefit from paying some attention to others who may know things they don't know, also it is very very hard to see your own personal biases especially if you are in a situation where you can block out everyone who disagrees with you, and associate only with people who agree with you. Robert Walker (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You really cannot listen to other people. I just re-read the discussion about the TBAN on the Four Noble Truths here and the reclose here by EdJohnston, an admin very experienced in handling disputes here (you should read that again, and listen to it). Read what Drmies (an Arbitrator here) wrote here; actually read what Bishonen (one of our best and kindest admins) wrote here (at the bottom of that dif). Read what even Robert McClenon wrote here - Robert runs the mediation board here and while he bent over backward to find some way to accommodate you, even he found your behavior disruptive ("It is unfortunate that he has made this necessary"; the "he" is you). If people like that, wrote those things about me, I would be taking a very hard look in the mirror.

You are making this about other people. The problem at the Morgellon's article is exactly the same as the one that led to that TBAN.. You ignored - completely ignored -- the strong sources that others brought and the reasons why they were better sources, and relentlessly argued for what you wanted on the Talk page, and ignored what everyone told you as to why the sources for your content were not OK. The same exact behavior.

You were repeating the same behavior at the Morgellon's talk page. You have repeated the same behavior here, about how to edit WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I obviously can't comment except to say that I have no complaints about the admins who got involved at all, except the natural difficulty of just getting questions answered. They are such busy people and I had questions that I couldn't get answers to because they were too busy, things that seem obvious to them but not so obvious to someone who has never been TBanned before or been involved in a TBan of anyone else. That is all. To say anything else would risk an extended TBan. Robert Walker (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The only one I can comment on is the Life on Mars dispute because I haven't had anyone threaten any action over that. The issues are of a similar nature for the other ones I can't comment on. Robert Walker (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow you again just ignored what I wrote.

if you do this kind of gaming again, I will take you to AE; what you wrote there again a) completely ignores the strong sources used in the article; b) continues to argue for content based on weak sources. Why you would think egging someone else to make your arguments and continue your disruptive behavior at the talk page of Morgellons would be OK in anybody's eyes, is beyond me.

And hey really - if you think your behavior is really great, and an AE case I brought would fall down, then please continue doing exactly what you were doing.

You keep citing my warning like it is an ooo-terrible "threat" - trying to paint me as an asshole. Look, if you think it is bullshit then ignore it. If you can see that you would likely get TBANed as a result of an AE case, then respect my warning and stop citing it like it is a terrible thing. Really ugly and makes me regret even trying to engage with you; makes me think I should have gone straight to AE and skipped this. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was okay to do that, notice I even pinged you in the post. I wasn't trying to hide anything. I stand corrected, that you will take me to AE if I do it again. I am totally sure that what I suggested is not pseudo science or fringe science and that therefore it shouldn't be covered by the discretionary sanctions.

But admins are not specialist in topic areas and they depend on editors like you to summarize the case, and mistakes do happen here sometimes as in any system of justice. I don't want to be involved in trying to argue with admins that it is not pseudo science. And I don't want to take the slightest risk of being TBanned, and it is a minor thing for me anyway. So, no I won't take it any further. Your threats will stop me, if you threaten to take me to AE, I am in such a position that I simply can't do anything about it but have to stop. It is not anyone's fault that that is the situation. It is just the way it is. Hope you understand. Robert Walker (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW just to explain why I thought it was okay. Was just offering moral support, wasn't urging @Probrooks: to do anything they weren't doing already. I didn't expect you to get upset about that and think it was an AE case to do that. Now I know you do. Robert Walker (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

100% done here. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion copied from @Probrooks: page

Sorry about this. It's not that I lack conviction though, it's just that I'm scared to speak my mind here, because I don't want to be taken to AE, especially having been through several stressful previous events. But I should have just stopped. After all, I made my point on the talk page already as you say :). And we have also rather hijacked your talk page and sorry about that! Robert Walker (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Probrooks: I just realized that as a newbie editor, you won't understand the context to all this discussion, and as someone who is thinking of possibly trying to get the article "sorted out" in the future, it's good that yuou know the background.

The thing is that Jytdog warned me that there are discretionary sanctions in place for Medicine on pseudoscience. This is to prevent cranks from wasting the time of other editors. If the other editors say they are being bothered by a crank, the admins will act quickly to ban them from the talk page. You might think that they would do an investigation, read the cites and check for themselves that it is pseudoscience. But no, that's not how justice is done here, instead it is done as a community similar to the editing process. The admins will look at my edit history and see that I have contributed to the talk page several times in long conversations with other editors opposed to me. They will also ask the editors if what I'm talking about is pseudoscience. Obviously @Jytdog: will say it is, as will several other editors. I'd argue in the same discussion that it is genuine science. But you do get psuedoscience or dubious science that gets accepted in peer reviewed journals sometimes (e.g. Cold fusion, or Water memory), so it won't be enough to show that it is published in peer reviewed medical journals. And the admins won't read the articles. The yalso judge very swiftly - if the case seems a clear one to them, they will give their decisions in minutes. So if most of the editors on the talk page say it is pseudoscience, the admins will accept that as the community decision and ban me.

I've had experience of this in the past (not of discretionary sanctions but of community justice here) and know that it works that way and I don't have a lot of confidence in the community sourced justice system on wikipedia as a result. It's not the admins that are the problem in my view, it's the system as a whole, that it can lead occasionally to miscarriages of justice. And that's why I don't want to risk being taken to AE while at the same time being certain myself from reading all the papers carefully that it is genuine science. And that's why I can't answer @Jytdog:'s points in this discussion because to continue to do so after the clear warnings he has given would be enough reason for admins to ban me. That's also why he is so confident in his ability to ban me, which comes over to you as arrogance.

Hope this helps you understand the situation. If you ever get a warning of discretionary sanctions, or someone says they are planning to take you to arbitration on some other matter, don't ignore it. Though ordinary editors can spend years on wikipedia without ever encountering this, I did myself. Robert Walker (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pobrooks. Robertinventor does not understand the situation. The community put standards in place about reliable sources ages ago. One of the key ones, is that we rely on secondary sources as much as we can - not primary sources. In health topics, this is especially important since there are zillions of primary sources (research papers) on pretty much anything you can imagine. Many of them are bad science and when other scientists try to repeat them, they can't. Many propose theories that don't work out.

So we rely on literature reviews to tell us what experts in the field understand is "accepted knowledge" in their field, along with key institutions like the NHS, NIH, etc.

What RobertInventor is doing, is hammering against this long-standing approach to sourcing health content. Putting himself, as a WP editor, above the reliable secondary sources in the field, to elevate some primary sources. Key sentence is "being certain myself from reading all the papers carefully that it is genuine science." No one cares what RobertInventor, or you, or me, think. Our opinions are not relevant here in WP and thank god for that, or this place would be a bigger nightmare than it is. And Robertinventor is WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion on top of that.

Both of these things - proposing sources against MEDRS - completely ignoring MEDRS - and bludgeoning. Both are obvious, and will be obvious to admins at AE. The "justice system" here works pretty well, actually. Robertinventor does not understand Wikipedia.

This happens sometimes with people who are somewhat accomplished out there - they just cannot see WP for what it is, when they come here. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I understand about secondary sources and we could have a discussion about that if you were to agree it is not reason to take me to AE to discuss it. But a disagreement about secondary sources would not be a reason to take me to AE. The reason you can threaten to take me to AE and have reasonable expectation that they would ban me is because you claim that what I'm talking about is psuedoscience. That's what I was trying to explain to @Probrooks:, so they could understand both why you seem very authoritarian and why also I seem very timid because I can't risk saying anything that would suggest I'm ignoring your warning. Even if I argue with you that it is not pseudoscience, that would be plenty reason for you to take me to AE. Robert Walker (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you do not understand why I will bring you to AE. You are really persisting in not listening. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:Well you posted the warning about pseudoscience on my talk page and then threatened to take me to AE warning about WP:MEDRS. So I assumed you meant you'd take me to AE about pseudoscience. Can you assure me that what I'm talking about does not fall under the discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and fringe science?

And can I reply to you explaining why in my view your WP:MEDRS reviews are insufficient to support the stance taken in the article without you taking me to AE? I have cogent reasons for challenging them if you want to hear them and won't take me to AE just for presenting those reasons. I didn't reply because you threatened to take me to AE if I said anything to continue my side of the discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert Walker Please take this discussion elsewhere, as I have already asked. As I understand it, WP:MEDRS is just a guideline, maybe we can have a discussion about this on your talk page at some point when I have time.

Probrooks (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment collapsed - @Jytdog: says that it is reason to take me to AE which I did not realize.

Extended content

@Probrooks: Done. Yes I know, but as well as that my main point that I'd like to make is that all except one of the reviews @Jytdog: rely on predate the CDC report and none of them postdate Marianne Middleveen's research. If @Jytdog: will agree that what I am talking about here does not fall under the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience and fringe science and that I will not be taken to AE for saying it, I am happy to elaborate on this, explain why I think this is significant, and continue with a normal discussion. However I have had experience here of wikipedia's community sourced justice system and I don't have confidence in it. The admins are not trained in jurisprudence, and I think as with any justice systems it can sometimes lead to wrong judgements, and it does not have adequate provisions in place to protect and help those who are wrongly sanctioned. Not through any fault of the admins; they are ordinary folk doing what they can as volunteers trying to help wikipedia function properly. I think there is need for reform of the system of community justice itself, as it has evolved here on wikipedia. There are various suggestions for ways this could be achieved that were discussed on meta. That is my personal view. At any rate, based on my own experience, though I think I have done nothing that deserves a ban, I don't want this to be tested through arbitration here in wikipedia. So I can only continue this discussion if the threat to take me to AE if I respond is removed. Robert Walker (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert Walker You tend to rattle on for quite some time and your main points lose emphasis, and you will alienate people like myself and ram up against people like Jytdog.

I think it is significant that 3 of these reports which are now marked as WP:MEDRS approved(!) predate the CDC report, and as you mention. Therefore, they cannot be based upon any actual science, (because none had been carried out), only assumptions and bias.

I haven't read the reports, as I haven't visited a university library just to look at these reports.

From this sentence in WP:MEDRS actually stands out

"Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported.

Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers."

If you read it, there is "no ban" on primary sources, as Jytdog likes to say - they are just not encouraged.

My issue here is that Jytdog is saying that the CDC study itself is not WP:MEDRS!

When you can see on WP:MEDRS, that is filed under WP:MEDORG.

"Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization."

Therefore, this website should be primary!

http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/index.html

I do believe Jytdog has failed to compromise with us who are saying this page should reflect the debate and research on this subject. WP:MEDRS are simply guidelines, not rules. They are also not written in stone, and created by the community. This article is clearly biased. I put this before the neutral point of view noticeboard WP:NPOVN, which lead to no significant discussion from other parties. So I'm leaving it for now, and have said what I have to say about it for now. I suggest you let it go for now as well, unless you can think of another way to tackle this situation.

Probrooks (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment collapsed - @Jytdog: says that it is reason to take me to AE which I did not realize.

Extended content

@Probrooks: I wish I could reply and have a proper conversation with you. I could do so by email if you like to use the option to send an email message to me. I do believe that if I reply in any substantial way here, presenting my views on the content of the article that @Jytdog: would take me to WP:AE and in view of my previous TBAN above and because I have made many comments in the comment history of the article, and have several editors there opposed to me who are long standing editors with many edits in wikipedia and no long standing editors in my favour, that they might well succeed. Thta is because of my previous experience of the way the wikipedia system of justice works on several different occasions. They seem very confident that it would succeed and that they would have me banned within minutes of taking out the action. That is especially since they haven't said that they would not fall under the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience or fringe science. If they invoke those sanctions, the decision would be swift, with a ban the expected outcome. It would be impossible to argue that my discussion was not promoting pseudoscience against several other editors who are taking out the ban and who all say it is pseudoscience, as I believe they would, to get rid of me. They would have strong personal motivation to interpret it as fringe science, and they could explain that Bovine digital dermatitis has the same active disease agent as Chronic Lyme Disease which is regarded as fringe science. I would argue that this does not make it fringe science as it is a different disease being investigated with different symptoms but I am 100% sure that in the circumstances, that argument would not carry the day. I would then have to argue that there is reason for mentioning it whether you call it fringe science or not, and that then would be interpreted as me taking my attempt to include fringe science in the article to the AE board, continuing the problem behaviour when I've been clearly warned by other editors not to mention the topic any more, and it would result in increased sanctions if anything. It would be better in those circumstances to just say nothing and accept whatever decision the admins make. I cannot do that because I must not have another TBan taken out against me. That's because of the community vote way that such decisions are made here. There is also no effective way to appeal - in theory there is, in practice, in my experience, for decisions like this, there is not. Even to ask questions on someone's talk page to explore the possibility of an appeal, or to discuss minor events that happened during the ban discussion is absolutely prohibited and can lead to an increase in the period of your ban. If I was banned from the Morgellons article, this discussion would be absolutely prohibited and I could not even mention the article or the topic to anyone on wikipedia - which makes an attempt at an appeal next to impossible, everything has to be done by yourself reading guidelines and past decisions - which are a morass. It's impossible to make sense of them and be sure of your understanding unless you are an admin already with long experience of bans and appeal procedures. I believe that theirs is not an idle threat. I imagine that as a newbie wikipedia editor, these may seem groundless pr exaggerated concerns to you, but I assure you they are very real. What you say is largely what I would say, though I'd add more details.Do send me an email though if you want to talk about it some more. That would not be cause for a TBAN, as it would be in private and then I could talk to you freely. The discussion then could be focused on my actual points for the article. Though we would have to take some care to make sure that I am not in any way influencing you or trying to get you to edit the article for me as a proxy, as to do so would also be reason to ban me and could involve you as well. In any case I doubt if you would succeed in changing the article in the current climate of opinion. But you might be interested to hear more about my reasoning. Just to hear my reasoning, and my thoughts and comments on what you just said, without me actually asking you to do anything, I think can't be a problem so long as it is done off wiki. Robert Walker (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC) If @Jytdog: withdraws his threat to take me to AE, at least for this conversation on my own talk page, I can continue the conversation here. Robert Walker (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I already told you above I was 100% done. You have gone on and on since then (as even PoBrooks noted) and you went ahead and made your argument above; your last paragraph is also ridiculously transparent. I am filing the AE this weekend. Not how I want to spend my time - this is a bummer. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't! What can I do to prevent it going to AE? I have collapsed my reply to @Probrooks: above as well as my previous comments where I stated my reasons for disputing your use of the WP:MEDRESWP:MEDRS reviews. If there is anything else I can do please say!

You can delete all the discussion of Morgellons from this page (delete, not archive) if you think it is necessary according to your understanding of wikipedia guidelines. It is very important to me that I not be banned. Robert Walker (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If you will agree to just drop this matter I will not file it. Let me know. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I will drop this matter then. Thanks. And just wanted to say, in the last paragraph of the now collapsed comment, I had no intention at all of trying to get @Probrooks: to proxy edit. If they had contacted me by email I'd have talked in detail about my conversation on the talk page and my own reasonings and I'd have strongly advised them not to follow my example as it would get them into the same trouble I got into. The opposite of proxy editing! I say things as I see them. It is not in my nature to say one thing and mean another thing, when I said no proxyy editing that was exactly what I meant. Robert Walker (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert Walker I'm not that much interested in talking about this further at this point. I would suggest it would be wise to give this article a month or three breathing space, and really let it go for now. Your psychological dynamic with Jytdog is farcical btw.

I disagree, and have long disagreed that this topic is a fringe topic, it seems topics can be just labelled as such, which prevents too much exploration of the topic, and a very narrow band of information being presented in the article. Anyone can see this article fails to communicate much about what this condition is or is not, to present research like what you are suggesting is not to propose that is the truth, but just to mention it exists. I don't like the present wording, but am not going to fight an uphill battle to change a few words at this point.

I would suggest the way forward here would would be to wait for further research to occur on this topic, and perhaps bring in other editors, who have a solid understanding of this topic and want to see a more balanced article. The issue is, not that many people seem to care, and find it easier to go along with the "party line", which tends to be very skeptical and present a very certain world view, even in the absence of information, which is what we are seeing here I think.

One thing I have found interesting is that this CDC finding, really reflects a compromised wording, just like many wikipedia articles! It would appear to me, that some in the team, think it is "thing", a real condition, and others do not. You see absolutely final and complete language, and then complete uncertainty in other parts. That the report took so long, and the sample size was so small tends to be extremely fishy to me and the declaration that no more study shall occur on this, even while it is still so clearly unexplained! Even still, these facts, regarding the small sample size and the soft language often used in the CDC report are not accurately reported in the article.

We shouldn't take this too seriously either, people who really want to find out about morgellons are going to do so. I had one editor telling me that the more I research and try to learn about it, the more ignorant I would be about it(!) Actually, mainstream media sources are normally quite balanced in their perspectives, I've tried to convey that this article should aim to be as balanced as these sources, such as Time Magazine et al.

Probrooks (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to say thanks, read what you say. I can't reply for what I hope are obvious reasons. You can email me if you like, I'm easy to talk to off wiki and have loads of friends. I totally will not be trying to get you to edit the article, and I agree with you that we should leave it for several months. In my case probably indefinitely. Robert Walker (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so you are done too. we are both done. great. i hope things work out elsewhere for you. Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes. I am active here on wikipedia too in multiple areas, many contributions, my main focus recently is on the microtonal music section of Wikipedia which is much in need of an overhaul and my edits there are welcomed :). And very active off wiki. Things are working out great for me. This is a minor incident. I hope things work out well for you too. Robert Walker (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Probrooks: Just to say hope I don't seem strange or rude but I simply can't respond to your message even to say whether I agree with you on your assessment of the situation. The thing is that in this conversation you are able to say things that would get me taken to AE instantly if I said the same thing back to you. Probably that's because you are a newbie. But there's no problem continuing a relaxed conversation off wiki if you like to email me either via my user page here or to my public email address which I can share publicly since as a software developer, it is available widely on the internet: support @ robertinventor.com . I see no problem with that, especially since we have both made it clear we don't think there is any future chance of getting the article changed in the near future. Robert Walker (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Robertinventor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Userspace protection

Hey Robert. I'm contacting you to follow-up on the RfC on userspace protection that you participated in. After a discussion at T149445, it looks like a filter is a better approach to implementing these changes. We're developing some language for a message that editors will see when the filter is triggered. Comments and suggestions on this message are welcome at the talk page. Take care, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dukkha and happiness

Hi Robert. I'm not going to respond on the 4 truths talkpages, since that is not a forum. But recently I read the intro of "The Happines Industry", with the great line (paraphrased, from memory) 'a world in which feeling depressed about the human condition is regarded as a treatable shortcoming'. That's the whole point: Buddhism is not about happiness, it's about the pain of living in this world and ending being led by blind impulses. It will end rebirth (and redeath), but it does not mean that one will never suffer anymore. As one roshi answered, being asked about how it is to be enlightened: "It only gets worse." Which means, one only becomes more painfully aware of the human condition and it's shortcomings. To which one may respond, not with striving towards happiness, but with compassion. Staying with the pain, 'presence', "presentie," instead of trying to escape it. In Christian terms: "Adam, where art thou?"

PS: I know now why your photograph makes me smile: my father has the same smile as you. Wish you all the best for 2017. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, I respect that that's your view. It is a reasonable life philosophy. It aligns also with what some of the academics say - after reading Richard Gombrich's "What the Buddha Thought" then I feel I have a better understanding of your views on Buddhism as they align quite a bit with what he said, which surprised me a lot.

However, I don't think you will find anything in the sutras and in Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught" saying this. Now some of what you say does match what the Buddhist teachers say. It's true that they say that we should open out to suffering, not block it off or hide from it. Trungpa Rinpoche once described the compassion of the Bodhisattva path as like swallowing a baby porcupine. It's letting all the awkwardness and difficulties right into the softest and tenderest parts of your being. It's not about blocking off or hiding from suffering. The path to cessation is through opening right out to it, but in the process it is transformed. It is no longer what we in our blocked off limited sense see as suffering. And it won't end old age, or sickness or death. Buddhas still get old, get sick, and die. In that sense, yes after enlightenment the enlightened beings still live through all the same things that we do.

And yes again it is reasonable to follow a path towards opening out to suffering, even if you think can't lead to happiness, and you think will only make you more and more painfully aware of the human condition. After all, it is realistic to do that, and not hide from things. But the Buddhist teachings on this are clear. Here is what Walpola Rahula says in "What the Buddha Taught", in his exposition of the first truth[3] which is also what all the teachers I've heard have taught:

“First of all, Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If anything at all, it is realistic, for it takes a realistic view of life and the world. It looks at things objectively (yathābhūtam). It does not falsely lull you into living in a fool's paradise, nor does it frighten and agonize you with all kinds of imaginary fears and sins. It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.”

[emphasis added for clarity Robert Walker (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)]

As to what that means, well it's like a Koan I think. How can it be that you get old, sick, die, have many misfortunes, open up to suffering fully, not just your own but sufferings of all beings, and yet be no longer caught up in the dukkha of Samsara? Gombrich spends many pages explaining that in his view, this is just a straight contradiction and wasn't what Buddha taught. So that is one way one can respond to it, and that seems also to be how you respond.

But to Buddhist practitioners in the sutra traditions, they just take this as stated in the canon, don't rewrite it, don't reinterpret it, but just take it as read. And as Walpola Rahula goes on to make clear, in his exposition of the third truth, this "perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness" is something Buddha says he realized in his very lifetime aged 35, when he became enlightened. The ordinary practitioner doesn't fully understand how this can be, as you have to be enlightened for that. But for practitioners in the Buddhist sutra traditions, we feel there is a truth there, something that motivates us to follow the path. I don't think it is the place for the Four Truths article to try to resolve this for the reader by rewriting the four truths to match Gombrich's interpretation - not in the lede. It's reasonable to include his interpretation, but to fold his interpretation into the lede is a bit like rewriting a koan to make it into something that no longer challenges you, or as I say in my talk page comment, like rewriting the lede for the Ressurrection of Jesus to match what you think best fits what actually happened.

As for ending rebirth, as I say in my comment there, Buddha said that when he died he would enter paranirvana. But he didn't say that all Buddhas have to enter paranirvana. Indeed according to the Pali Canon, he said that he could remain and continue to teach until the end of this world system, but Ananda didn't get the hint. But we've discussed this at some length already and also mention it in my comment. Hope this helps.

I wish you all the best for 2017 too. But please - do talk to people a bit more when you find their behaviour problematical. There was no need to take me to WP:ANI and enforce a topic ban. You could have just come here to my talk page and said that I was talking too much on the four noble truths talk page and doing too many edits of my comments, and I'd have stopped. I never had any wish to continue the discussion if other editors found my comments unwelcome. I was under the impression that I was having a friendly though heated discussion, with some comments about the lengths of my posts but nobody said they thought I was being disruptive to wikipedia. Then, with no warning, not saying that you intended to do it, next thing I knew I was in ANI with all of you telling me that I was a problem editor who needed to be topic banned and some even saying I needed to be site banned, for talking too much on the Four Noble Truths talk page. During all of that discussion nobody once came here to talk to me about what was going on or to ask me questions or anything. Robert Walker (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert. Thanks for your explanation on how you perceived the discussion and the ANI-procedure; I'll keep it in mind, and try to take into consideration your understanding of this kind of interactions the next time. And yes, you do talk a lot ;) It's helpfull to know that you're not aware how much irritation this awakens (that's not correct English, is it?) with others. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, I have learnt that it is irritating here in wikipedia, and nowadays start with short comments here, until I'm used to the person I'm talking to. Then if I feel they are comfortable with long posts, and especially if they reply with long posts themselves, or they encourage me and say they like my posts, then I start to do long posts. It's only here. On facebook, quora, my science blog posts, emails, private messages, everyone likes my long detailed and carefully thought out replies. Only one comment in the last year, someone who thought a quora answer I did was too long (which I then shortened). That's it out of often many very long comments every day. With you here, I thought there was no need to keep it short as you often do long comments yourself which run to several pages, just as I do, and you sometimes respond to long comments so quickly that you must read the conversations rapidly too. I like long comments myself, I have no issues at all with your long comments when you do them. If my posts here are too long for you, just say and I will respond accordingly.

Yes, in the conversation on the talk page of the four noble truths, I was aware of course that some people found my posts too long, they said so shortly before you took me to ANI, and I did my best to shorten them after that. Do you see the difference between asking someone to shorten their posts, and saying they are disruptive and that you plan to get them topic banned? Nobody said they found my long posts so irritating they wanted to topic ban me, until the ANI action started, and I had no way to guess that that was how they were thinking. Why, why, why couldn't you come to my talk page here and tell me about the issue, if you felt I was being disruptive, rather than take me straight to WP:ANI?

It's the same with your edits, that you act without talking them through first. Not just WP:BOLD. You are such a fast editor, and come to an article that has been in a stable state for a long time, with active editors doing incremental changes - and then suddenly you do pages and pages of article rewrites without discussion. All they have are enigmatic edit history comments to go on to get an idea of what it is all about.

That's the main reason that Dorje had to stop. You are a generalist who edits throughout topics on India and Indian religions, if I understand right. He was a specialist editor who had worked for the previous year on two or three central articles in Buddhism. Yet you just come along, and did major rewrites, totally changing the meaning of the articles in many details all the way through. You never discussed your plans with him first or explained what you had in mind, other editors just had to wait and see what you had done with the article several days later.

It was the same when you reverted all the edits on the Anatta article by a newbie doing their first edits of wikipedia. They were more expert on Buddhist scholarship than you at least on the topic of Anatta, which was their postgraduate research interest (that was clear from the discussion). Yet you reverted every edit they did and they were forced out of wikipedia. You only stopped to talk to them when I drew your attention to this issue, and even then, your conversation consisted in you telling them all the ways that they were wrong and telling them they shouldn't use the sources they used. They told you that these were standard sources for postgraduate work in the topic area, but you didn't even consider this to be something to discuss with them, just told them they were wrong to use them. And you had not a word of encouragement or showing that you respected and valued their contributions.

Showing respect might have been something like "Great to have you here, this article is a mess and we really need someone to join in who is doing postgraduate work on Anatta". And then going on to discuss their edits and understanding of wikipedia guidelines. It's not about saying you like them as a person. Most people are here to work, not to make friends, or only incidentally so.

In that short time, two knowledgeable editors were forced away from wikipedia. If you'd stopped to talk to them first, and shown respect, encouragement and appreciation, they might still be here. Probably would be. Do you not see that there is a value in this. That it can help to stop and talk and listen before taking major actions that impact on others? Of course you may find them irritating in many ways. But is it not best to stop and try to talk to them about the behaviour you find irritating? If you'd talked to me, about the issues you had with the 4NT talk page discussion, well you'd have got your wish, I'd have stopped. And you'd have been saved all the nuisance of the ANI action which can't have been pleasant for you either.

You are such a prolific editor here, and I only know of these events because I was directly impacted or connected. How many other editors have left wikipedia because of your approach of acting first without discussing your edits with them? Or do you perhaps think wikipedia is better off without these editors?

So I think this must happen a lot with you which is why I feel it might be worth just trying to raise it in case maybe somehow I can connect, maybe do something to help in some way. Does this make sense to you? Can you see at least some truth and value in what I'm suggesting here? Just to talk a bit more, not in the sense of "Hey I think you are a great person, I like your smile, and BTW I just decided to try to get you topic banned". But in the sense of talking about things that may impact on others that you are planning to do, before you do them, and listening to what they have to say. And perhaps to show some respect and interest in edits and ideas from people who are expert in specialist topic areas. Or does it not make sense at all to you? Robert Walker (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Catterline.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Catterline.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Disused-cinema bradford.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Disused-cinema bradford.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Green container.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Green container.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

On latitude

I have moved your historical section out of Latitude to a new page History of latitude measurements. I hope you will be prepared to help expanding and improving that page. Peter Mercator (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of 21st-century earthquakes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Agri and Usak. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary of the extensive overview of your already very extensive contributions to Talk:Four Noble Truths

Extended content

Robert, you've summarized enough at Talk:Four Noble Truths; no need to do it again. I've reverted your latest additions. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC) @Joshua Jonathan:, I know I did many posts in the past in a short period of time, of just a few days but one short new post after four months didn't seem excessive. Since I wrote my last post there, I have had plenty of time to reflect on what I wrote, and I have of course discussed it a fair bit off wiki and felt that with the help of some distance I could summarize the main points more clearly than I did before. So, I thought that was enough reason to do a new post. I see someone else has reverted your edit of the talk page. Deleting a new post by an editor you have previously argued with on a talk page seems rather unusual especially without prior discussion with them about whether it should be deleted. As I just said, I feel it was okay to post there. However, having posted, I don't think it is appropriate for me to debate about whether my talk page comment there should be kept or not. If other editors decide as a consensus that it should be deleted, well so be it. I'm happy to let the comment stand on its own and be its own defense if it is needed or not. So I'm posting this just to say that. Robert Walker (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) I've never seen anything like this on wikipedia, a talk page with just about all the comments collapsed and the collapsing done by editors with the opposing view on the article content to the person whose comments were collapsed. Robert Walker (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Robert, you asked me before to tell you, in a kind way, when your edits were crossing a line. They are, again. We've discussed this over and over again. So, please stop, okay? Just drop it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Please see my post on your talk page [4] Robert Walker (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ultramicroscope

Can you explain to me why you are working so hard to have ultramicroscope in the lead of the microscope article? No one can provide a source saying it is a major tyle of microscope, including yourself, but, in spite of a lack of evidence, so many editors want this. Maybe you can explain it to me? --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:5D (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW I am logged out of my main account but got a notice saying there's a message on my talk page - that's why I'm signing as a different user. I am doing that because of a Buddhism discussion - I want to avoid notifications on that for a while as I feel I have said a lot in a short time and need to give others a chance to reply and discuss without me for a while. The thing is if you see a red notification you then want to read it and then when you read it, then you think of a reply - and before you know it, if you are a quick typist like me, you may find you have replied, without even giving it much thought about whether perhaps you have already written a lot that day already.

However, I have no reason to avoid notifications on the microscope discussion at all. I have hardly written overmuch there :).

So anyway - I don't feel that it should mention ultramicroscope. But it could be a way forward to satisfy the ones who want the term mentioned. So it was a compromise since otherwise it looks like it will end in a deadlock and nothing will happen. So, my reasoning there is, that it is not currently an important microscope. But it was historically important from 1902 to the invention of the electron microscope in the 1930s. Back then, apparently, it was the only method available to observe particles smaller than 200 nm in size. So that makes it historically pretty important in the history of microscopy. Surely not as important as an electron microscope, at least not for us now. But enough so that it is understandable if it is mentioned in a historical paragraph in the lede of the article, not as absurd as mentioning it as one of the main types of modern microscope as it does at present. It was just a suggestion. There are good sources saying it was a major type of microscope from the 1900s through to the 1930s. Robert C. Walker (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

First, there's no deadlock. One supporter is rambling, and the other cannot provide any sources. I pointed this out before, but you keep talking about the deadlock. Why?

Second, Wikipedia requires reliable sources. There are none, because it's not true. So, an unsupported statement will not be kept in the lead of the article. This is not a compromise situation, that some alternative fact, unsupported, should be in Wikipedia.

This isn't the microscopy article, it's the microscope article, so your arguments about its importance in microscopy are not in the right place.

So, can you provide a source, rather than telling me they exist? Just one.

You are currently the one who is trying to put it in the lead, there's no deadlock to keep it there, there's no need for compromise. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:5D (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just replied in the discussion itself.[5]. In summary: I gave a source that shows it was a major type of microscope in the early twentieth century. It doesn't seem to be one any more. I could be persuaded either way on inclusion of it in a historical section in the lede. If it is included, my suggested paragraph should be expanded to say more about the historical development of other types of microscope. I think it does deserve mention in the historical section later on. I am opposed to its mention as a major present day instrument in the lede. I'll add this as an extra paragraph to summarize what I said there :). Thanks! And sorry for the confusion. Robert Walker (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please quote the source that says what you say it says. I don't see it. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the broken link. Have replied there now with the correct link to the article. Robert C. Walker (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I already had the article. I don't see it saying, "the ultramicroscope is a major tyoe of microscope," or some variation. Please provide a quote. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We're at 6000 words or so, a dozen editors, and weeks of discussion about one unsourced word in the article lead. If you have a quote saying it is a major type of microscope, please provide it, we'll source it in the lead and move on. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Have replied on the article talk page again. I found quotes that to my mind mean it was a major type of microscope in the early C20. It was more than just a microscopy method. It involved a new stand and a new type of objective, authors at the time talk about it as a microscope, not a microscopy method. I'd call it a major type of microscope back then, historical. Your mileage may vary :). Robert C. Walker (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I concede, it's not an optical microscope, it's a completely different type of microscope. Now, please source that, that it's not an optical microscope. And, oil immersion lenses are patented. Oil immersion is a major optical microscopy method today, unlike the very unfamiliar ultramicroscope, but no one is arguing to throw "oil immersion microscopes" in the lead. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk)• —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please take another look at the cite I gave.

• It is an optical microscope.

  So why aren't you trying to put it in the optical microscope article instead of the microscope article? --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• It was a new design at the time and won its inventor a Nobel prize.
• The stand shines light at it from the side, and it observes scattered light against a dark background, unlike a normal microscope.
• The design also required a new kind of objective lens

One of its earliest uses was to study a kind of glass that has gold nanoparticles in it, which are only about 4 nm in diameter, and they used very bright sunlight to illuminate them, then it was possible to spot such tiny particles. They could see the particles moving as they were hit by nearby atoms, and the light was multi-coloured which gave them information about the size of the particles, something that back then they could do in no other way, so it was the first observation of nanoscale particles and it was done optically, and they were able to estimate the sizes of the particles. And they couldn't use a conventional optical microscope for the experiment but had to design a new microscope stand and new objective lens. It's all explained. There are other sources in google scholar. But you don't need to read them. The source I gave is all you need, but please read the source carefully.

It's my view that

• This is a historically significant optical microscope

  So why aren't you trying to put it in the optical microscope article instead of the microscope article's lead? --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• It was a major type of microscope in the early twentieth century - after all its invention got its inventor a Nobel prize and they didn't have many types of microscope back then
• It does not seem to be a major type of modern microscope - at least if it is then nobody has shared any evidence yet that it is
• I think it deserves mention in the historical section
• I could be persuaded either way about a mention in the lede, but if it is mentioned, as a historical microscope, not a present day microscope on the basis of the evidence so far
• If it is mentioned in the lede then the lede should have a reasonably detailed paragraph on microscopes, as this is hardly the most important microscope every invented, but it does seem interesting enough that it deserves a mention in a long lede paragraph about the history of microscopy.

Thanks! Robert C. Walker (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll copy this summary to the discussion, as I think it may help to put it there as well. And I'll amend my oppose vote to say this bit about it being potentially historically significant. Robert C. Walker (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Have just amended my oppose vote and also added a weak support as a historically significant microscope. That makes my vote consistent with what I say in the discussion area which should help, thanks! Robert C. Walker (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source. --2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave it, for a historically significant microscope. You don't seem to have read it as you said it was not an optical microscope in your last comment. It explains clearly that it is. Please re-read it. If that is not enough, sorry I just don't know what else you need, and may need to bail out of this conversation unless you can explain a bit more clearly what it is you want. It's probably something I'm missing, but if so, sorry, I just haven't understood what else it is that you are asking for, not yet. Thanks! Robert C. Walker (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

After reading your discussion of how you think an SEM works, I assume, although I don't know for sure, that you're trolling me, but, as far as the RFC goess, you're just another "support" without a source. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AE (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trolling you. Why would you think that? If there is something wrong in my explanation of how the SEM works, do say! I won't be offended. I'm not an expert in electron microscopes :). I put it in as a place holder to explain how that section could be expanded just like the optical microscopes section. As usual on wikipedia I'd expect community editing to improve what I wrote. I have no idea what you mean by saying I don't have a source. Sorry. I just don't get what you want there. It is only a weak support and it is not a support for including it as a major type of modern microscope. I just did it so that my vote there would be accurate because you kept challenging me saying my vote in the RfC did not match what I said in the discussion. It was not open to me to change what I said in the discussion as those are my views. So to make the two areas consistent to match your challenges I had to edit my vote instead.

And as for the final decision, well it's an RfC, and I am a previously uninvolved participant putting forward my honest view on the point at dispute. I came to it as a result of searching wikipedia for an RfC that I could comment on as an uninvolved editor. I had no previous involvement in the discussion. I made my vote there and I explained my vote in the discussion. That is all that is expected from a participant in an RfC. Thanks! Robert C. Walker (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Everything is wrong with your explanation of an SEM, you just made up some stuff about BSE imaging mode and added some other random stuff about scattering of electrons and x-rays. Lol.

As for the RFC, it's about an unsourced statement in the lead of the microscope and you're going on about the optical microscope article. So, yes, I assume you're trolling. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it after your completely random comments about SEMs. Sure, make up random stuff, then ask me to tell you what's wrong with it. The TEM s5uff is useless also, but after the BSE statement on SEMs I stopped reading. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AE (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I am not an expert on electron microscopes. I just read the article on the scanning electron microscope. What I wrote is a summary of what the article says about how the SEM works, as I understood it. See Scanning_electron_microscope#Principles_and_capacities. If this is wrong, I suggest you go and edit the article to fix whatever issues you have identified with how the SEM works. Or explain to me what I have misunderstood about the explanation in that article. It wasn't the main focus of my comment, it was just meant as an example to show how you could have a longer historical section and it would still not overburden the lede, and it could briefly explain how each type of instrument works. Of course in the course of collaborative editing, other editors would fix whatever is wrong with the description of how a SEM works in the lede. Robert Walker (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you think your paragraph which focuses on scattering, TEM thin sections, and the BSE signal is related to the section you quote? What is the first signal it mentions, which you completely omit? "This removes the need for a thin section by detecting the back scattered electrons, and may also detect scattered X rays, ...." Does it say anywhere in the SEM article that the instrument was invented to "eliminate the need for a thin section?" Please read what it says about thin sections in that article. Then, you focus on the BSE signal, while the article says all over the place that the SE signal is primary. No where in that section does it mention detecting "scattered x-rays." That you read that section, then write what you wrote, means there is no way I can explain to you what is wrong with your paragraph. The same with your willful interpretation of the ultramicroscope journal article to support your desire to highlight it in the microscope article, in particular your inability to see that the optical microscope article and the microscope article are two different articles. You are either trolling with the electron microscopy paragraph, and that you quote a section of the SEM article which includes nothing you said seems to indicate it, or your comprehension level is far too low for me to explain it. So that's over. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:AE (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That's from the Electron microscope article:

"The major disadvantage of the transmission electron microscope is the need for extremely thin sections of the specimens, typically about 100 nanometers"

.

So, dimplers, dual beams, tripod polishers, and ultramicrotomy were invented. The SEM does not eliminate the need for thin sections by looking at the BSE signal, which does not gather the same information, and no article says that.--2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:A5 (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It mentions many other advantages of SCM in that article.

"Generally, the image resolution of an SEM is at least an order of magnitude poorer than that of a TEM. However, because the SEM image relies on surface processes rather than transmission, it is able to image bulk samples up to many centimeters in size and (depending on instrument design and settings) has a great depth of field, and so can produce images that are good representations of the three-dimensional shape of the sample. Another advantage of SEM is its variety called environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) can produce images of sufficient quality and resolution with the samples being wet or contained in low vacuum or gas. This greatly facilitates imaging biological samples that are unstable in the high vacuum of conventional electron microscopes"

But I felt that was too much detail for a short sentence in the lede. It was just an example of how you would talk about electron microscopes in a historical lede for the Microscope. I only spent a couple of minutes drafting it, based on reading those two articles and my own understanding of the electron microscope for what it is. It's okay if you think I am not clever enough to understand this topic. I am just a volunteer editor who came to the RfC to put my vote there :). I haven't even edited the article itself, at all, just posted an example paragraph to the talk page to show in an approximate way how one might cover the historical development of the microscope. If it ever does get added I expect the whole thing to be rewritten by many editors in the future :). That's how wikipedia works. Even if you don't know much about a subject, just enough to get started on writing about it, you can "be bold" and write something and then leave it for others to improve it. Robert C. Walker (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:A5 and 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:A5: - I think the best way to answer your point is to share an SEM image. I'll answer here to avoid breaking up the text.

That's what a SEM image looks like. It eliminates the need for thin sections only 500 nm in thickness (0.0005 mm) which is a severe limitation of a transmission electron microscope. To give you an idea of scale, the smallest ant is around 0.75 millimeters in size (from the Ant article), or around 750,000 nm. The TEM does have advantages as well, or we wouldn't have them, including very high resolution, but when it comes to imaging large objects, then the SEM is what you need of those two. It has several other advantages too as summarized in that quote I gave from the SEM article. Robert C. Walker (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't eliminate the need for thin sections. TEMs still exist. And they still need thin sections. If you're going to shoot the ant's thigh muscle tissue, on an SEM or TEM you still need a thin section. It's a completely different image. The article does not say that TEMs were invented to replace SEMs.

Guess what? That's not a back scattered elecron image, either.

And a thin section 500 nm thick is not electron transparent. --2601:648:8503:4467:B8F7:414C:13FC:D318 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't understand what you are reading at all. And, instead of making an effort to understand one sentence, you keep reading more, and coming up with more evidence that you comprehended nothing. Or you're trolling. lol --2601:648:8503:4467:B8F7:414C:13FC:D318 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say what kind of SEM image it is, just that it is an SEM image. As I said, I'm not an expert in electron microscopes. I make no claim to be. I just did an example of how you could mention different types of microscope in the lede. This image of an ant is given in the article Electron_microscope#Scanning_electron_microscope_.28SEM.29 as an example of a SEM image. If that article is wrong in identifying it in this way do edit that article and fix it. Wikipedia depends on experts to fix things. I wrote above "The TEM does have advantages as well, or we wouldn't have them, including very high resolution, but when it comes to imaging large objects, then the SEM is what you need of those two.".

All of this is about a single sentence in a paragraph that I suggested as a replacement for the lede as a way to show how the ultramicroscope could be mentioned as a major historical microscope though not as a present day microscope, which I weakly support at present in the RfC. The RfC isn't even about electron microscopes. I am glad we are discussing it here rather than in the discussion area of the RfC as it would flood that page and seriously annoy other editors there. But here on my own talk page I am not in the least bit bothered by such things. I enjoy these conversations, I learn a lot, even when there are many miscommunications. So long as you are genuine and not trolling me, I'm happy to continue with this. So here is the passage we are discussing in a comment I made on the talk page for the Microscope article under Talk:Microscope#Discussion_of_inclusion_of_ultramicroscope_as_a_historically_significant_microscope_in_the_lede.

"The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels. The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937. This removes the need for a thin section by detecting the back scattered electrons, and may also detect scattered X rays, light produced and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, and use these to build up a picture of the specimen."

So far you have just said it is nonsense and LOL'd at it, but you haven't yet mentioned a factual error in it that I can recognize, you have said nothing that would persuade me to change anything there yet. You challenged my statement that the SEM removes the need for a thin section. But I shared an SEM image that shows an image of an ant which is clearly not a thin section. So how can you say that the SEM doesn't remove the need for a thin section? Of course you still can use a thin section with an SEM, but you can also do images of specimens that are not sliced up in that way. So thin sections are no longer necessary, so it has eliminated the need for a thin section. I didn't say it has "eliminated the possibility of a thin section". Is that a bit clearer?

I wondered if you might be trolling me. But I know some editors here pay very close attention to fine points of detail and you may well not be trolling me. But I am finding this conversation quite hard to follow, all the twists and turns, and don't understand what you want of me or why you are focused so much on this material about the electron microscope. And I don't know what it is you think is wrong with it, after many comments back and forth. And as I said, it is not even in an article. It hasn't even been commented on by anyone except you. I have no idea whether they will want to use it. Is quite possible nobody will be interested in it at all. What does it matter if I got something wrong there anyway - except of course as something of interest perhaps to discuss between ourselves. The idea was just to show my suggestion that rather than just a long list of types of microscope by name, that it should instead have fewer types of microscope, the ones of most relevance to the history of the microscope, and say a sentence or two about each one. That is my opinion on the RfC. Other editors of course are free to have other opinions. The idea of an RfC is to get opinions from uninvolved editors. I am an uninvolved editor. I gave my opinion. That is what is expected of me on that page :). Robert Walker (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The article says SEI is the primary imaging mode and you said the SEM was invented to take BSE images to replace thin sections (which are transmitted electron images). The article discussed characteristic x-rays, and you mention scattered x-rays. I can't explain any error to you, because you read "scattered" when you see "characteristic," and "backscattered" when you see "secondary." Then you post a wall of text. You are unwilling to see what is written or can't see it. So no error can be pointed out to you, as you don't speak or read the language in the text.

What matters is it shows your complete inability and unwillingness to understand what you read. --2601:648:8503:4467:B8F7:414C:13FC:D318 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a single sentence, either, it's every sentence. No one is going to add that to the text. It's not information. --2601:648:8503:4467:B8F7:414C:13FC:D318 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so there is one sentence that you say is incorrect:

"This removes the need for a thin section by detecting the back scattered electrons, and may also detect scattered X rays, light produced and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, and use these to build up a picture of the specimen."

It doesn't seem hard to correct it to fix what you said. I have just removed the word "scattered". There is on need to go into the detail of what is meant by "characteristic X-rays" at this stage in a short sentence in the lede for a new reader. I've said "back scattered electrons instead of transmitted electrons" and changed "need" to "requirement" which is what I meant but "need" was a bit ambiguous.

"This removes the requirement for a thin section by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, instead of transmitted electrons, and can use the secondary electrons and any of the other information to build up a picture of the specimen."

Does that fix it? This is how a community editing works here, we work together to improve the material. We don't expect editors to be expert in what they write, they do their best. But I wasn't even editing the main article. As I said I spent a few minutes on it and it wasn't meant for the main article at all. It was just to show the idea. But as you say if it has errors in it which is no surprise as I'm no expert on electron microscopes, that will obscure the main point there so good to fix that!

Is that sentence now correct? Any other mistakes you spotted? If that one is okay then I will just to back to my post and edit that sentence, which I'll do with a strike out to make it clear I had to correct it and add a comment at the end, linking to this discussion for explanation. If you have issues with any of the other sentences in my example, then do say likewise and I'll fix it. If the whole thing needs to be rewritten, I'll just do a strike out of the whole thing and post a new version. Robert Walker (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it is still completely wrong, and so is the rest of the paragraph. Why are you resistant to letting people who understand the topic or can read the technical literature edit the article?

"This removes the requirement for a thin section by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, instead of transmitted electrons, and can use the secondary electrons and any of the other information to build up a picture of the specimen."

First off SEMs aren't designed to remove the requirement for a thin section. You made that up. It's not anywhere in any article you consulted. I keep pointing that out, and you keep saying it's true. It's not. SEMs take completely different kinds of images, although, they can also be used to to image thin sections, also, if they have the right detector. SEMs scan the surface of a sample, and TEMs transmit beams of electrons through a sample.

The SEM did NOT remove the requirement for thin sectioning to replace the TEM. Basically a TEM transmits a beam of electrons through a sample to image interior structure, and an SEM scans the surface with a beam of electrons to generate signals.

How many ways do I have to say it? The SEM does NOT remove the requirement for thin sections for internal structure. You drew that conclusion. Internal structure STILL REQUIRES thin sectioning.

The only purpose of detecting x-rays is to detect characteristic x-rays.

I have no idea what you mean by "back scattered electrons, instead of transmitted electrons." Both signals are generated if the specimen is thin enough, and if you do something like freeze fracture, your secondary electrons are your biological imaging signal, not BSEs. See, you made up that thing about SEMs being a replacement for having to thin section for TEM, and now you're citing yourself. The BSE signal does not replace the transmitted electron signal and no article said that. --2601:648:8503:4467:4538:D2EB:B969:B573 (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, you are reading what I wrote in a different way from what I intended. I do understand that point that a TEM and a SEM take completely different images. I never meant to suggest that a SEM takes the same type of images as a TEM. Never. I know they are a different type of image. The TEM uses a thin section and transmitted electrons. The SEM uses secondary electrons (thanks for the correction) and BSEs. Of course both are generated in the TEM but it doesn't use the secondary electrons. I know all that. So the only problem is to make sure that my sentence says that clearly. Let me try again is this clearer to you? I've changed the order of the words, divided it into two sentences and replaced "requirement" by "restriction". This is what I meant to say:

"The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels. The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937, and works in a different way, by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, and using some or all this information to build up a picture of the specimen. This removes the restriction to thin sections of a transmission electron microscope. "

Is that okay now? Any other major issues with the paragraph? These things can be sorted out. 81.158.47.111 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not okay, and it will never be okay, as long as you keep saying that thing about removing the restriction to thin sections. It doesn't remove that restriction. You still have to have a thin section for a transmitted image in the TEM or the SEM. Why do you keep saying that? It doesn't remove the necessity of ultra thin sectioning. I can't imagine what more you need me to say. Your statement is BS, at the beginning, the end, or the Middle. But you keep saying it. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

All I am trying to say with that sentence is that a SEM can take images of ants and other things and is not restricted to only imaging thin sections. That you agree on as you agree that image of an ant was taken by a SEM. So all we need to agree on here is how to say that in text in a way that is so unambiguous that both you and I read it the same way. We are on the same page as far as what it should say, I think.

Actually TEMs can be used to take images of other things than thin sections. I am trying to suggest you stop trying to say that about thin sections. It's wrong. The statement is about how demanding thin section sample prep is for TEM, it's not about TEMs can only be used for thin sections. That's wrong. It's not about SEMs being more versatile because they don't require thin sections. That's not true. You are completely off target, and I can't get you to stop trying to say it. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

"The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels. The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937, and works in a different way, by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, and using some or all this information to build up a picture of the specimen. This makes it possible to image large objects instead of being restricted to only imaging thin sections like a transmission electron microscope. "

And why do you separate out back scattered electrons? It's a more primary signal than EDS. Why? Why? And it's not about the size of the object. You have to have custom chambers to image large objects, and when you say that you start talking about specialized SEMs, a type of electron microscope in an article on microscopes in general? Why? Why get so specific?

It's not about the thin section. How many ways can I tell you that you are wrong about that? You can't image "large objects" on most SEMs. It's not about the size or thickness. It's not. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that now clearer? It's a bit more verbose, but hopefully now the reader can only read it one way. Or do you still read it as meaning that - for things that need ultra thin sectioning, that the SEM removes that need? Or is there some point that I am missing still? If so, are you able to explain it? Bear in mind, I am probably typical of a scientifically literate reader who is not specialist in electron microscopes. So how I read it also matters as I'm a typical reader of the article, who is also interested in the subject as well, what's more. I was interested enough to respond to the request to comment on the RfC and continue to be interested throughout this long conversation (or I'd have stopped and gone away). Robert C. Walker (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

NO! If something needs ultra thin sectioning to view on a TEM, it still needs ultra thin sectioning to view on an SEM! Again, you are wrong about this! Wrong! How many more ways do I have to say it?--2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The thing is, my idea for this paragraph in the lede, to focus on the historically important steps. So here, with the SEM, for the first time in history they could take images of things larger than just a 500 nm section, at sub-optical resolution. So that is a significant historical development in terms of microscopes. Robert C. Walker (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

An SEM isn't about not having to use thin sections. It's not! If you want to see internal tissue on an SEM you still have to thin section. And you image thin sections on an SEM if you have a detector. And, you can't view a tissue biopsy on an SEM just by using a larger piece, you need a TEM.

It's not about the thin section. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I told you 500nm is not electron transparent. Ultra thin sections for TEM are between 40 and 100ish nm. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:82 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh if you said that, I didn't notice. I must have copied the figure down wrong. Looking at the article it says 100 nm. Please remember I spent all of a couple of minutes or so on that sentence. It was not the main focus and I didn't expect it to get so much attention. I totally understand. When you say "If something needs ultra thin sectioning to view on a TEM, it still needs ultra thin sectioning to view on an SEM" - I know that. I always knew that right from when I first wrote that sentence. If the sentence seems to be saying something otherwise it means not that the sentence is wrong, but that it is ambiguous. You read it one way. I read it another way. I need to explain that the SEM lets you image large items like ants and you are not restricted to only imaging thin sections. I didn't say the SEM Can't image thin sections.

If I put it this way, is it now okay for you?

"The first electron microscope was developed by Ernst Ruska in 1931, which by using electrons in place of light, allows a much higher resolution. This was a transmission electron microscope. It uses electrons which due to wave / particle duality can be used in place of X-rays or light. The electrons were focused using the electromagnetic lens previously developed by Hans Busch in 1926. The electrons are focused on a thin slice of the specimen pass through it, the resulting image is magnified by another electromagnetic lens system and the result is then recorded as an image that can record details down to atomic levels. The transmission electron microscope is restricted to electron transparent thin sections of up to 100 nm in thickness. The scanning electron microscope was developed by Manfred von Ardenne in 1937, and works in a different way, by detecting the secondary electrons, X rays, light and other signals produced during the interaction of the electrons with the specimen, along with back scattered electrons, and using some or all this information to build up a picture of the specimen. "This makes it possible to image large objects of any thickness."

I'm fine with the paragraph either way as I read both of them as saying the same thing :). I've corrected 500 nm to 100 nm. Anything else to fix? Robert C. Walker (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The basics

"The transmission electron microscope is restricted to electron transparent thin sections of up to 100 nm in thickness."

No, this is not true. TEMs are not restricted to thin sections. You misunderstood the sentence about the limitations. Please STOP trying to add this to the microscope article.

"This makes it possible to image large objects of any thickness."

No. Your statement is not only false but also off target. You can't image objects of any thickness or size in an SEM, and because you are obsessed with thick and thin you missed completely what an SEM does. Your statement is not only ambiguous, it's also wrong and misleading.

--2601:648:8503:4467:4538:D2EB:B969:B573 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

To be very clear, even though I have said this dozens of times, stop including thin sections and objects of any size or thickness. --2601:648:8503:4467:4538:D2EB:B969:B573 (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

First. I am not trying to add this to the microscope article :). The only reason to discuss this at all is for an example of how the lede paragraph might look for a comment in an RfC on the article talk page. So far nobody has commented on that discussion, so it looks very unlikely that it will be added to the article. The requirements on comments in discussion talk pages are much less stringent than the requirements for the articles itself. And editors are permitted to make mistakes on talk pages. They are permitted to make mistakes in articles too. When that happens other editors just correct the mistakes. It's just not an issue to make a mistake, that's what community editing is all about. If we all waited until an expert comes along who can write a perfect article with no mistakes there would be hardly anything on wikipedia.

Still, I'd like to get it right even so. I appreciate your corrections for that reason.

I'm sorry, I just have no idea why you say that TEM's are not restricted to thin sections. Are you saying that TEM's can image thick objects? Surely they have to be transparent to electrons. I suppose if you had a material that was electron transparent when thick it would work too but I think just about all the materials they image have to be sectioned to be 100 nm in thickness before they are electron transparent. If I have misunderstood something here, please say! I don't say this is the only distinction. The main distinction as I understand it is that TEMs use transmitted electrons and are based on transparency. While SEM's primarily used either back scattered electrons or secondary electrons, light etc to image the object and don't rely on transmitted electrons. Of course in both cases you get all those kinds of phenomena, so the distinction is based on how they are used. If I have misunderstood do say. If I still can't understand what you are saying, well, I'll update my comment there with my best understanding to date, which is the last edit above, and just leave it at that and leave it for other editors to do further comments :). Remember, editors are permitted to make mistakes here. Especially in talk pages. Maybe another editor will come along and explain my mistakes to me in a way that I can understand, if I can't understand you. Robert Walker (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A thin section is a specific type of sample. Viruses and bacteria are frequently imaged as suspensions, a very major use of TEMs. So many more examples.

Stop with the back scattered electrons, also. The primary imaging mode for an SEM is the secondary electron imaging mode.

You need to stop wasting time with your obsession with thick objects in the SEM. I don't know how to say this. You are wasting everyone's time because you keep thinking that the SEM was invented to look at thick things. It wasn't. It was invented to look at different things. No, you don't understand tbat be cause you keep including it in your paragraph. Then you're going to try to start a five month 10,000 word discussion on it by posting this to the microscope page. No one will explain it to you, because you are obsessed with putting thick objects in the SEM. --2601:648:8503:4467:4538:D2EB:B969:B573 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your paragraph is wrong, uses bad emphasis, contradicts other articles on Wikipedia, is unsourceable, and every sentence needs edited. Why? Why spend time on it Why? It offers nothing usable. Then, on top of that, no matter how many times I say it's not about size, you continue to make the entire paragraph a discussion of size. --2601:648:8503:4467:4538:D2EB:B969:B573 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. As I see it I have fixed every specific thing you said was wrong. You still say it is wrong. I won't ask you to spend any more time on it. I will add a comment to the RfC discussion with this new version of the paragraph, and leave it at that. I will re-iterate that it is just a suggestion to show the idea of how you could introduce the various types of microscope by mentioning fewer types, going into more detail about each one rather than just a list of names, and to use the historical approach as a gentle introduction to the topic for a newbie reader,. I will also say that I would expect it to be rewritten extensively if it is used in the lede. Thanks for helping to clear up some points, even though I know you think the result is still wrong. Robert Walker (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Great. I'll say the same things there. The article will never be improved. The SEM is not about thin sections, and you'll get to waste other people's time. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:8F (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead. Maybe others there will understand what you are saying and then say something that I can understand. Or use what I say in some other way. It's all fine. My suggested paragraph was just one view presented in the discussion area of an RfC for goodness sake! There is no point in a re-run of this conversation there. I'd have stopped long ago if we were talking on the talk page of the article itself :). And - I expect the article will get improved :). You can try improving the other areas of the article. If you find the RfC frustrating, try working on the body of the article and improve that instead :). These sorts of RfCs on fine points in the lede of an article often go on for a long time in wikipedia, sometimes multiple RfCs over a number of years before it gets resolved. It's just the way it is here. If it's too much for you, I suggest just finding other things to edit, including the body of the article itself or another article :). And it's none of my responsibility, I didn't invent how wikipedia works, or the idea of community editing or of RfCs, I'm just a participant in an RfC :). Robert Walker (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No. As long as editors here add unsourced crap to articles they don't understand I'm going to fight it. You go ahead and stuff your huge objects into an SEM. But don't subject readers who come to Wikipedia for information to your lack of understanding. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:8F (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. You just completely have lost me. I have not a clue what you are talking about. You seem to contradict yourself as you agreed earlier that the image I posted was a SEM image of an ant. I don't think my posts to the RfC have been excessive. As for here, I just answered you post for post. Indeed you often did two posts for my one. And I haven't added anything at all to the Microscope article. All I did was vote in an RfC on it, in its talk page and contribute to the discussion there. I have never done a single edit of the article. Another editor did add some unsourced material to the article and I voted with you on the RfC, an "Oppose" vote. But that wasn't good enough for you. Because I also said that the ultramicroscope, though not a major instrument now, was a major type of instrument in the early twentieth century for three decades, you fought me on that topic saying it was inconsistent with my Oppose vote in the RfC until eventually I had to add a "weak support as a historical instrument" as the only way to make my remarks in the discussion area consistent with my vote in the RfC. As I am still of the opinion from the Nobel prizes, and the historical articles from the present day that it was a historically significant instrument back then, then - that was the obvious response. So you brought this all on yourself, and then when you continued to insist I clarify my remarks then I wrote a suggestion for a draft paragraph for the lede to explain how it could be mentioned from a historical perspective. I explained it was just to show the idea and bound to be altered before adding if anyone thought it was worth doing. You then pointed out mistakes in that paragraph. Just a paragraph I wrote in the RfC in response to your challenges to my weak support of it as a historically important microscope. I tried to fix those mistakes. You say it still has mistakes in it. You also went through marking every sentence as uncited - it has no cites because it wasn't meant as an article paragraph, the cites would be easy to add but you don't have to cite material on a talk page. And you say it is still wrong, though I don't understand why. Well so what, I don't see the mistakes but if it does, it's no big deal.

Even mistakes in an article are no big deal, eventually someone fixes it. But a mistake in a comment by an editor in the discussion area of an RfC on its talk page? ... Let's see what other editors say if anyone else comments. Thanks :). I think I need to drop this conversation so if you reply again - which you are of course free to do, I will postpone my next reply for a few days. I have enjoyed this conversation. I have learnt some new things I didn't know about SEMs and TEMs. Even now, I'm not upset by it, just puzzled. But I feel it is going nowhere, round in circles, so it's time to stop. Robert Walker (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)