User talk:Thsgrn

This user may have left Wikipedia. Thsgrn has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Autistic Enterocolitis/Dietary intervention section to be deleted

Please see my comment here [[1]] The Invisible Anon 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did, and responded to the discussion. I doubt I particularly agree with you (and I had it on watch anyway, heh), but ah well. I'm striving for including all meaningful information while retaining an NPOV and not getting false or actively misleading information, so maybe we've got similar goals there. Michael Ralston 00:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anti-vaccinationists

"This claim rests on the organic mercury content of the chemical. Government pharmaceutical companies clearly have an interest in denying this, and there are potentially gains for litigants if a connection can be shown in court."

I'm happy enough about word choice - but not all pharmaceutical companies are run by govts... I don't quite understnad what you are presenting there. Midgley 13:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that not all pharma cos are run by govmts. And for those that are not, there is concern in governments that healthcare is being increasingly run by pharmaceutical companies by the backdoor:

"The industry affects every level of healthcare provision,from the drugs that are initially discovered and developed through clinical trials,to the promotion of drugs to the prescriber and the patient groups,to the prescription of medicines and the compilation of clinical guidelines. We heard allegations that clinical trials were not adequately designed – that they could be designed to show the new drug in the best light – and sometimes fail to indicate the true effects of a medicine on health outcomes relevant to the patient.We were informed of several high-profile cases of suppression of trial results.We also heard of selective publication strategies and ghost-writing.The suppression of negative clinical trial findings leads to a body of evidence that does not reflect the true risk:benefit profile of the medicine"

House of Commons Health Committee The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Fourth Report of Session 2004 –05 See Summary p3. [[2]]

The Invisible Anon 12:22, 5 February 2006

That wasn't me, was it? I just wanted the word "rests" as opposed to others. The second half was already there, IIRC. Michael Ralston 02:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - forgot signature - see above - :The Invisible Anon 12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

birth and death categories

Just wanted to let you know that all the standard birth and death date categories use lower case letters on "birth" and "death". You have been adding cats to articles with the words upper-cased, which results in the articles being in useless red categories instead of the regular categories you wanted to put them in. - TexasAndroid 18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing others comments

Why did you remove my comment on the village pump? That is usually considered vandalism. [3] --Colle||Talk-- 05:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed posts by me as well. Do you have any explanation? Superm401 - Talk 22:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have an explanation: You made your edits between the time I clicked "edit" and clicked "save", and I failed to notice the indicator of an edit conflict. My apologies. (Comment also posted to Siperm's talk page - Colle has indicated this page is being watched, so no need to post an extra time.) Michael Ralston 23:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That explanation doesn't hold water. When there's an edit conflict, the version before your edit goes in the main edit box. For our edits to be erased, you would have had to deliberately copy your edit from the bottom box. You couldn't have "failed to notice". Moreover, your edit was 15 minutes after mine and only added one sentence, so an edit conflict is unlikely. Superm401 - Talk 00:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do click to edit on multiple pages before starting editing - most of the pages I edit on are rather low-traffic. And I cannot imagine any reason I would have removed those specific comments - one of them has little substance in and of itself, one of them states something I agree with, and two of them would be simply silly.

And maybe it's not an edit conflict - actually looking at the times of the comments that got removed does make it seem not to be. But that doesn't change the facts that *I* can see - I made an edit to add a comment, and somehow accidentally removed other (recent) edits in the process. The edit conflict seemed the probable explanation - but if it's not correct, then there is still an explanation other than deliberate removal, simply because I did not, in fact, deliberately remove it. I can't say what that reason is, because my knowledge of wikipedia is incomplete - for instance, I only actually found out about the village pump a few days ago (and promptly put it on my watchlist).

Again: I apologize. I also, now, wish I *did* know what the cause was, so as to be able to avoid doing that in the future. Michael Ralston 00:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Gah. How do I convince wikipedia I don't want my edit marked as minor? :/

Okay, I'll assume good faith. As for the minor edits, do you have it set to select "minor" by default? That's in preferences. If not, what do you mean exactly? Superm401 - Talk 03:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was that I accidentally clicked the minor edit box on an edit, then tried to make a null edit without the box checked, then made an actual edit again, this time actively without the box. It's not a huge deal, just annoying. Also, thanks for the assumption of good faith - I simply can't prove my good faith in this instance, but I know I have it. So ... yeah. Again, I apologize for the whole mess. Michael Ralston 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralston?

Are you the Ralston I know in person? --Improv 03:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. A brief perusal of the links from your user page argues against you being anyone I know. Unless the Ralston you know in person lives somewhere near Kutztown, PA ... then no. (That said, my memory for people is notoriously poor.) Michael Ralston 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ralston I know lives somewhere near Pittsburgh, PA. I would guess if you don't recognise me by my userpage, that you're not him though. --Improv 03:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust in Arabic

As far as I can see there are two articles on the holocaust: one is machrakat (sp?) and the other hulucaust (meaning obvious). I do not know what is going on, so perhaps it is best to allow the users of that Wikpedia to sort things out and link as necessary. gidonb 09:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't planning on editing it again, so... Michael Ralston 09:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my reading and writing skills in Arabic is not so great anyway. I am better in conversation. Later, gidonb 10:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dude

don't panic I just changed the inter-wiki to a better arabic article about the holocaust that is it , relax ..the arabic article that you brought back in the arabic interwiki worth nuttin thanx dude 139.142.151.13 10:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kaiser Permanente, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Kaiser Permanente

Carlton, blogs are permitted by WP's external links policy. Indeed, if they serve as one of the strongest representatives of a specific POV, they SHOULD be linked - and made clear what their POV is.

Reality check, from WP:RS#Using_online_sources:

Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

--Calton | Talk 02:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (note the actual name)[reply]

"Reality check" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Under Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid:

Pages that contain a substantial fraction of factually inaccurate material or which contain unverified original research should not be linked to if there is scholary or scientific concensus about the subject and especially if the unverified original research contradicts this concensus. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.) Note that big ol' Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online sources link I referred you to earlier.

And honestly, your "unacceptable as a source" yet "acceptable as external link" claim doesn't make the least bit of sense, logically, practically, morally, or philosophically. --Calton | Talk 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bull. That one doesn't apply. Is there a scholarly or scientific consensus about Kaiser? Of course not. And it makes perfect sense - otherwise we wouldn't separate external links and sources the way we do, and we would not be advised to link to POV sites the way we are. POV sources are bad, but allowing those who want to, to find those POV sites is good. Michael Ralston 04:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colours on pgkbot

Hi, Changing the colours is not a big problem, but I'm loathe to make big changes as I'm sure you appreciate, you can't please everyone, but having the links in a different colour doesn't seem unreasonable, just got to work out which one of the limited palette will work for everyone (light and dark colour schemes). Reseting the colour to default was originally there, but there were some clients (Trillian I think) which should the code as a square block and didn't reset the colours... It's also difficult for me to get a feel for what other people see, on my client (chatzilla) using a wikilink script with a dark background, the links come out in white and so are pretty easy to see, due to the wikilink script. --pgk^(talk) 07:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Midgley

Just to let you know, User:Midgley appears to have registered himself today as User:The Invisible Anon. He is now editing as User:The Invisible Anon and following me around and adding edits as "The Invisible Anon".

Here is his original IP address for the sock puppet he first started editing with on Wikipedia. This has to be him because only he would know where it is. The diffs clearly show him associated with his recently registed user IDs the User:Invisible Anon and User:The Invisible Anon:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=14287194 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=16799973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41250577 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41457405

Here is the link to his history of contributions and if you follow them you will see what he is up to:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=The+Invisible+Anon

Here is some of his mischief on the MfD page:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser_talk%3A86.10.231.219&diff=41466436&oldid=41447676

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 16:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael; I've posted a CheckUser request for this already; something's fishy—though I'm not quite as ready as the anon IP to jump to Midgely as the perpetrator. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not too much doubt about it. User:Leifern challenged him directly with this result [[4]]. He deleted User:Leifern's posting leaving "Thanks for pointing it out". Not quite the response of the innocent. The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 20:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a stretch—if Midgley isn't involved, he'd probably also want to know about the dispute since you've accused him of creating the sock. Please wait for the CheckUser before you blame Midgley; in the meantime the new account has been blocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [[5]]. He is aware. The question was put directly (noted above - done by User:Leifern). This is a further response. Again, no denials. The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Take A Look At This

You may want to look at this where User:Midgley is trying to dredge up the dispute we settled ages ago - see [[6]]

Please also see Some Evidence for Your Arbitration - found here [[7]] and Perhaps Sterner Action Than Last Time? - found here [[8]]

And now [[9]].

^Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branches reach far

OK? [[10]]

Thanks for being so reasonable. Obliged to you.

^Talk - The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219

Invitation

Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hi, Michael - Midley is now placing "merge" tags on my article, presumably in retaliation for my support for Invisible Anon during the username-spoofing incident. Despite the tag, I didn't see the article on the Merge list. What should I do? --Pansophia 02:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Controversies in autism

I'm flashing a warning light, I think that's three reversions! ^_^
brenneman ^{L} 01:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder

You said: "I'd also like to suggest the issue of the user page associated with this be re-opened, but I'll take that to DRV after this has been closed, unless someone else does so sooner. Michael Ralston 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)"

Nobody else did. I've relisted that page[11]. To what extent your treaty with the user prevents you from reacting to anything he does I'm unsure, but one has to admire his technique in that respect, without liking it. BTW, thank you for your sensible comments on Leifern's anti-Midgley page. Midgley 11:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser Permanente RFC/User:Pansophia RFC

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pansophia

You have previously shown an interest in this. Midgley 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus:• syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • morefixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages• convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjustthe font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Usually it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 21:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd: Thriftbooks

AfD nomination of Thriftbooks

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thriftbooks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thriftbooks. Thank you.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]