Jump to content

User talk:WATerian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hello, WATerian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Boghog2 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

[edit]

Thank you for contributing to our articles. If you are interested in making more contributions on cell biology and biochemistry topics, you might want to join the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject (signup here). You will be most welcome. - Boghog2 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Citations

[edit]

Hi. Great work on expanding the GLUT2 article! In case you haven't already seen this, check out the template filler tool. Given a PMID, you can quickly create a fully formatted {{cite journal}} template that can be directly copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Using this tool will save you a lot of work and insure that citations are displayed in a consistent way. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TIA/stroke

[edit]

I suggest you have a close look at a number of content policies and guidelines before making further changes to the TIA and stroke articles. In the stroke article, you suggest that everyone with localising neurological signs should receive honey. I think that without a very strong source, this is not just unproven but dangerous. Stroke patients may aspirate buccal and gastric contents (including honey), and calling for emergency care may be delayed because someone is thinking "oh it's just a hypo, let's wait for the honey to work".

Could I suggest you read WP:NOR and WP:MEDRS to find out about making contributions to medical articles? JFW | T@lk 18:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this ... Oral_glucose_gel ... it has a similar consistency to honey? You appear to prefer People to suffer neuroglycopenia rather than engage the possibility of relief from hypoglycemia via glucose/fructose?
Please explain your perceived degree of alleged aspiration pneumonia danger from honey?
Dr Fredrick Banting, teaches [in his famous 1925 lecture] about the onset of HYPOglycemia, stating:
"... The first warning of hypo-glycaemia was an unaccountable anxiety and a feeling of impending trouble associated with restlessness ..."
Also Dr Banting states:
"... The ingestion of carbohydrate, in the form of orange juice (four to eight ounces), or of glucose, relieves these symptoms in from one-quarter to one-half hour. If the reaction is severe, or if coma or convulsions occur, epinephrin or intravenous glucose should be given. The former acts in from three to ten minutes, but in order that the symptoms should not recur, glucose must be given by mouth as soon as the patient has sufficiently recovered. The patients were warned that when these reactions occurred they were to obtain carbohydrate immediately ..." [1] - WATerian 20:19hrs gmt sun 22mar2009
What you are suggesting is that all stroke patients, even those who are not likely to have hypos, should be treated as if they have a hypo. With stroke thrombolysis becoming an accepted modality, your advice would lead to people with potentially salvageable brain tissue being treated empirically for a "hypo". You are not basing yourself on any authoritative sources (see WP:MEDRS for background).
You should really stop making changes to stroke without discussing this on the talkpage (Talk:Stroke). I face the decision of having to block your account for lack of collaboration with other editors. JFW | T@lk 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented are cited. The information may be new to You and the questionable understanding of the editors who You endorse and the questionable comments that You have facilitated without question but the fact is the information submitted on my part is historical. - WATerian 23:35hrs gmt mon23mar 2009
The content you added is erroneous or irrelevant. Please do not readd your content until you have conducted a discussion on Talk:Stroke. JFW | T@lk 19:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hulda Clark

[edit]

The understanding you have of her cause of death fails to get at the heart of what was happening. A parallel situation can be used to illustrate. People rarely have "smoking tobacco" listed as their cause of death, and instead have lung cancer listed, or even "milder" conditions that were caused by the cancer. Well, it was the smoking that really caused it all to happen. The same can happen with AIDS patients, with a common cold being listed as the cause of death, when it was the AIDS that weakened them so much that a cold could kill them. That's all putting it simply, but I hope you get the point. It helps to have a medical background to understand these things. Many of the editors your are dealing with are medical professionals, not lay people. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain from the facts re. the words upon Clark's death certificate evidence that specifically states: "... not resulting in the underlying cause ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WATerian (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 November 2009
Could you please join the article talk page discussion?
I agree it would be helpful to have a detailed explanation of what section 112 of the certificate of death is used for and what "Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in 107" means. --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be edit warring over this issue. Participation at the talkpage is good, but you may be blocked from editing if you continue reverting the article against consensus. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing your edit warring will get you blocked. You MUST achieve a consensus on the talk page before making anymore such edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

[edit]

This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Hulda Regehr Clark, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 02:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume that you weren't clear on what I was referring to with the above warning. This edit reintroduces links which blatantly violate the policy on biographical material. If you reinsert them again, then I will ask that you be blocked from editing, because this kind of editing isn't an acceptable use of Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 19:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WATerian, you should note that BLP applies to all living persons, whether it be the subjects of articles, Wikipedia editors, or people outside of Wikipedia. The BLP policy forbids harassment, outing, or the use of sources that engage in such activities. The source you posted is unreliable in this regard and must not be used. Your current attempts to continually edit war over this type of content and this issue are disruptive behavior and you are headed in the direction of the door. Cease and desist would be a good idea. This will get you nowhere. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs and dubious YouTube videos are simply not appropriate sources for an encyclopedic biography. Nor is it appropriate to constantly reinsert them on an article talk page. The point of the article talk page is to convince other editors that your preferred changes are consistent with this site's policies. You're not going to accomplish that by constantly reinserting ever larger numbers of inappropriate sources. MastCell Talk 18:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WATerian, your ideas of what is true or not aren't relevant here: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The issue is far more complicated than a simplistic reading of the death certificate, and you need reliable sources that discuss that matter. I agree with Nunh-huh: "I"m afraid I disagree with you on this. No physician on reading that certificate would think anything other than that she had died of complications of multiple myeloma."[2] The symptoms listed on the death certificate were obviously caused by the multiple myeloma. They didn't come by themselves. She didn't get the multiple myeloma treated and she died of the complications.
BTW, are you the same editor who also edits as User:Cosmos1745? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MastCell Talk 20:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Per the above discussion and the many previous warnings and attempts at alerting you to the violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people in linking to a blog which castigates a named third party, I have suspended this accounts editing privileges for 24 hours. Further violations of WP:BLP in the same or similar manner are likely to result in longer sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of unblock template

[edit]
I have removed your use of the unblock template. I have no idea what you were trying to do, but quoting a large block of text from an article is not a valid unblock request. If you wish to be unblocked, please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. In general, you need to convince us that you will change the way you behaved prior to being blocked. --Jayron32 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


RE. The matter was answered by the unblock request and especially reference 10 of that unblock request, by WATerian, filed at 22:32hrs MON.28.DEC.2009. A discussion is only possible when matters are being discussed. Referenced counterargument including a chronology is a reasonable means of talk / discussion.

This matter has already been dealt with and unblocked by FisherQueen on MON.28.DEC.2009 at 22:35hrs GMT ... please see ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WATerian&oldid=334625545 and ...

WP:TLDR. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said "Too long, didn't read." That isn't the same thing as unblocking. To confirm this, try to edit, and I think you'll find that you are still blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Providing a reference is not an unblock request. What you do when you want to be unblocked is you explain, succinctly, what you did wrong, and what you will do in the future so that you will abide by Wikipedia's behavioral rules. You were not blocked because you used or did not use a reference. You were blocked for violating behavioral rules, so you will need to change your behavior if you wish to avoid being sanctioned again. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. --Jayron32 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Talk / discussion should be reasonable and permit chronological referenced counterargument.

The words "Too long, didn't read." were other than clear. The matter is answered by reference to the following text especially reference 10 ...


Hulda Regehr Clark (18 October 1928 – 3 September 2009)[1] was born in Canada and, during some 50 years within her occupation of substantially 'self-funded' scientific research into human physiology & medical parasitology, became a controversial naturopath, authoress, and practitioner of alternative medicine who claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including all cancers. Published claims including an authoritative proposition by blogger 'Orac' (a claimed "... pseudonymous surgeon/scientist ..." i.e. an apparent professional),[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] claiming that cancer was the underlying cause of Clark's death, are not the truth. Documentary evidence of the preceding months of: (A) anemia (immediate cause); and (B) hypercalcemia (underlying cause) are documented, as the specific "cause of death", upon section 107 of her death certificate[11]. She died following medical treatment for the hypercalcemia[11][12] and, in relation to that verified "underlying cause" of death, section 112 of her death certificate further factually details: "... Other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause ... multiple myeloma ..." (a blood cancer & bone cancer). Clark was last seen alive by a physician, on 12 August 2009, more than 2 weeks before her death in California. Also, according to section 109 of the San Diego death certificate, a post-mortem biopsy (that could have provided evidence for a medical diagnosis of any existence of multiple myeloma) was never done and cancer was never proved, as causative of the hypercalcemia, by any other medical laboratory test. Section 112 of Clark's death certificate (excluding cancer/myeloma from the underlying cause of her death) was certified, on 09 September 2009, by Dr Silvia Garcia (as per certificate section 115) and reported to the Coroner (as per section 108) as evidenced on the certificate with referral number WV09-05107.[11][12] -- WATerian (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ In Memoriam, Dedicated website domain registered by Clark's publisher, New Century Press that states: "... On the evening of September 3rd 2009, Dr Hulda Clark’s celebrated life came to an end. Please let the world know how Dr Clark has touched your life. This site is meant to honor the legacy of healing Hulda Clark left us with. Please join us in celebrating her life and passing. Share your story with us, Dr Hulda Clark would have appreciated her death being used as a catalyst for healing ..."
  2. ^ ScienceBlogs.com, TUE.27.OCT.2009 @ 10:00hrs claim by blogger 'Orac' that alleges: "... a reader sent me a scan of Hulda Clark's death certificate, and this is what it listed as the cause of death: Multiple myeloma. Cancer of plasma cells, a form of lymphoma. Don't believe me? Check out Hulda Clark's death certificate (certain addresses whited out) for yourself ...". 'Orac' alleges Clark's cause of death with reference to Clark's death certificate but without reference to section 112 of the cited official certificate that is reliable factual evidence that the "underlying cause" of Clark's death was not the result of multiple myeloma. 'Orac' (a claimed "... pseudonymous surgeon/scientist ..." i.e. an apparent professional) has published an authoritative allegation that is untruthful and misleads readers {please see 'Anaximperator' claim below}. A Scientist should document truth before opinion. Wikipedia should reference Clark's death certificate in a proper manner.
  3. ^ Anaximperator.Wordpress.com, updated after TUE.27.OCT.2009 @ 10:00hrs claim by blogger 'Anaximperator' that alleges: "... Hulda Clark died of cancer?! ... I’m sorry if I seem a tad triumphant, I don’t mean to, honestly. But I just could not let this go. Unbelievable as it sounds, apparently überquack Hulda Clark died of cancer, multiple myeloma to be precise. Now how in the world can this have come about? See also Respectful Insolence. ...". 'Anaximperator' alleges Clark's cause of death with the supporting reference to Orac's abovementioned 'Respectful Insolence' blog. Again readers are misled by Orac's untruthful authoritative allegation. Wikipedia should record the historical facts as evidenced by Clark's death certificate.
  4. ^ Wikipedia.org, MON.23.NOV.2009 @ 20:41hrs GMT claim by Wikipedia editor 'MastCell' that alleges: "... Cause of death: here is a gift: lengthy original research ... If you want my view as someone with relevant medical training, then the answer is obvious. She likely had myeloma, although her doctors apparently did not follow the standard diagnostic approach to confirm that suspicion. Two major and extremely common complications of myeloma are anemia and hypercalcemia, either or both of which can be fatal if unaddressed. Death certificates are notoriously unreliable as to specifics of causation - not only are many doctors unclear on the difference between causes and mechanisms of death, but they are often completed by physicians without firsthand knowledge of a patient's clinical course over time. Based on the death certificate and the material from Clark's website, the overwhelmingly logical conclusion is that she had myeloma, which led to fatal anemia and/or hypercalcemia. That's my opinion, based on the available (admittedly incomplete) sources and my personal knowledge and training. It is also largely WP:SYN, and keep in mind that I am pseudonymous, so for all my claims of medical expertise, I may very well be a 24-year-old college dropout. I am very tired of the close parsing here - it seems driven by a desire on one editor's part to bend over backward to evade the obvious conclusion that Clark died of a form of cancer - her own website says as much, which makes the denialism here particularly odd. ...". The claim by 'MastCell' asserts that his opinion is more evidential than Section 112 of Clark's death certificate (excluding cancer/myeloma from the underlying cause of her death) as certified, on 09 September 2009, by Dr Silvia Garcia. MastCell then goes on to state: "... keep in mind that I am pseudonymous, so for all my claims of medical expertise, I may very well be a 24-year-old college dropout ...". Upon clicking upon MastCell's reference the reader is taken, by MastCell, to the Essjay scandal. Wikipedia should endorse the published evidence, certified by Dr Silvia Garcia, upon Clark's death certificate ... rather than the opinion of MastCell (who apparently refers to that opinion as 'lengthy original research').
  5. ^ WCFcourier.com, FRI.18.DEC.2009 @ 14:00hrs claim by blogger 'Chuck Shepherd' that alleged "... Ironies ... Dr. Hulda Clark, 80, passed away in September of multiple myeloma, an advanced cancer of the plasma cells. Before she was stricken, she had authored three books touting her eccentric remedies as cures, first, for "all diseases," and then, especially, cancer. In her books "The Cure for All Cancers" and "The Cure for All Advanced Cancers," she urged those diagnosed to immediately stop chemotherapy and embrace her quixotic regimens, to subdue the "parasites" that cause cancer ..." is untrue. Hulda Regehr Clark believed that parasites contributed to diseases including cancer and at least 1 follower of Clark's proposed parasite 'subduing' protocol has apparently witnessed reasonable results YouTube video... {please see 03:44}
  6. ^ Wikipedia.org, SAT.19.DEC.2009 @ 07:42hrs GMT claim by Wikipedia editor 'BullRangifer' that alleges: "... Hulda Clark died on 3 September 2009 of multiple myeloma (a blood and bone cancer). ..." by 'BullRangifer' seeking to evidence that published claim (by who?) with the newer claim published, by Chuck Shepherd, on FRI.18.DEC.2009 @ 14:00hrs (as cited above).
  7. ^ Wikipedia.org, MON.21.DEC.2009 @ 08:03hrs GMT claim by Wikipedia editor 'Cosmos1745' that alleges: "... Hulda Clark died on 3 September 2009 from complications presumed by her physicians to be from multiple myeloma (a blood and bone cancer)... ..." altering the claim by 'BullRangifer' because of concern, by 'Cosmos1745', that the claim published, by Chuck Shepherd, on FRI.18.DEC.2009 @ 14:00hrs (as cited above) be "... removed non-credible and biased source ...".
  8. ^ Wikipedia.org, MON.21.DEC.2009 @ 14:36hrs GMT claim by Wikipedia editor 'BullRangifer' that alleges: "... Hulda Clark died on 3 September 2009 of multiple myeloma (a blood and bone cancer). ..." by 'BullRangifer' seeking, again, to evidence an earlier published claim (by who?) with a newer claim published, by Chuck Shepherd, on FRI.18.DEC.2009 @ 14:00hrs (as cited above) without reason being given and irrespective of concern, by 'Cosmos1745' published MON.21.DEC.2009 @ 08:03hrs GMT (as cited above).
  9. ^ Wikipedia.org, SUN.27.DEC.2009 @ 18:15hrs GMT claim by Wikipedia editor 'MastCell' that alleges: "... none of these sources are remotely appropriate for an encyclopedic biography, and their constant reinsertion is an abuse of the talk page ..." by 'MastCell' apparently seeking to avoid the bona-fide evidence within Clark's death certificate whereby a professional Physician certifies section 112 of the certificate (excluding cancer/myeloma from the underlying cause of Clark's death). Simultaneously MastCell, who has associated the 'MastCell' pseudonym with the Essjay scandal (as referenced above), deletes WATerian's SUN.27.DEC.2009 @ 17:19hrs GMT Wikipedia publication. Wikipedia should prevent MastCell's deletion of publications by alleging 'abuse of the talk page' as a means of preventing a discussion, of the evidence, as referenced by WATerian.
  10. ^ Wikipedia.org, MON.28.DEC.2009 @ 20:26hrs GMT claim by Wikipedia editor 'MastCell' that alleges: "... removing inappropriate links per WP:BLP ...". Wikipedia should prevent MastCell's deletion of publications by alleging 'removing inappropriate links per WP:BLP' as a means of preventing a discussion, of the evidence, as referenced by WATerian. If MastCell detailed any alleged 'inappropriate links' the specific concern could be attended to as appropriate.
  11. ^ a b c "Hulda Regehr Clark's death certificate" (PDF). Cite error: The named reference "Hulda Regehr Clark's death certificate" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  12. ^ a b "Dr. Clark's Home Page". Cite error: The named reference "death" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Reply

[edit]

With all due respect, the matter is not solved by quoteing a large block of text and citing a reference. You were not blocked for not citing a reference. You were blocked for violating Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines, and quoteing a reference does not absolve you from proper behavior. Until you show understanding of what behavior guidelines you violated, how you violated them, and how you will avoid being blocked in the future, you will not be unblocked. --Jayron32 00:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WATerian&oldid=1083201625"