User talk:Yankhadenuf

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Asperger syndrome. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Asperger syndrome with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at Asperger syndrome shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Asperger syndrome

Hey, could you listen to what people there are saying to you? Medical articles require a higher standard of referencing, for obvious reasons. --John (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. You'll better understand the ethos here if you read all the policies you've been pointed to in that discussion. Most important is a good grasp of WP:MEDRS, including the distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary sources.

Basically, we are extremely conservative regarding what we will allow in our medical articles. What that ("conservative") means is outlined in WP:MEDRS. It boils down to this: our medical articles are paraphrases of what the most recent and authoritative secondary sources say on the topic. For instance, if you find a recent (last 5 years ideally) authoritative "review" article addressing thiomersal and autism spectrum disorders that says something important about the topic that isn't already covered in an article, you'll probably be supported by other editors. If you don't - if your source is old, a primary source, doesn't say exactly what you want to add - or if your proposed edit breaches content policy in some other way, you won't be supported.

Though anyone can edit Wikipedia, editing our medical articles is an extremely rigorous and demanding craft that takes a lot of policy reading and practice to master. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Extremely rigourous" and "ethos" based on what criteria exactly? Certainly not empirical science. My scientific investigative posts and FOIA entries have pointed out the extreme fallacies that currently exist within autism-related articles in Wikipedia. False rhetoric is being blatantly & openly perpetuated with slim if any documentation, yet the scientific investigations are being swept under the rug for the sake of scandalous "consensus". There have been international & US scientific investigations from 1977 Russia to 2011 Brazil regarding the connection of Thimerosal to neurotoxic damage, in lab settings, animal experiments, and human infants and older data. How many scientific investigations must I reference beyond the "conservative" primary, secondary, and tertiary sources? Can someone please point me in the direction of Mr Wales snailmail address? Yankhadenuf (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf[reply]

In addition, there are also many scientific investigations of other environmental mercury sources (such as coal-fired plants, dental amalgams, etc.) that also contribute to neurotoxicity in animals and human beings(including during gestation.): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18353703 "Health Place. 2009 Mar;15(1):18-24. Epub 2008 Feb 12. Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence. Palmer RF, Blanchard S, Wood R. Source University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio Department of Family and Community Medicine, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio Texas, Mail Code 7794, TX 78229-3900, USA. palmerr@uthscsa.edu " http://commons.ucalgary.ca/mercury/ "How Mercury Causes Brain Neuron Degeneration University of Calgary,Canada Faculty of Medicine Dept. of Physiology and Biophysics Please contact Dr. Fritz Lorscheider or Dr. Naweed Syed regarding research inquiries and Julian Wood for technical inquiries." Yankhadenuf (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf[reply]

Wikipedia editors do not draw medical conclusions that have not been drawn in authoritative review articles, it's not that kind of publication. I think the reasoning behind this practice is covered in WP:MEDRS.

You may find Mr Wales' address at his Wikipedia user page: User:Jimbo Wales, I haven't looked. Or you might address letters to the Wikimedia Foundation. He's a board member so I'm sure they'll forward anything on to him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yank, it doesn't appear that you are reading the policy and guideline pages that we are asking you to read, and that makes it hard to pursue a rational discussion where we can help you understand how to contribute. See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:V, WP:MEDRS, WP:OWN#Featured articles and WP:RECENTISM (they all apply to this instance). WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source-- we don't report on primary studies that haven't been reviewed by secondary sources, and particulary not in medical articles. I disagree with statements that editing medical articles here is harder than other kinds of articles-- in fact, sourcing standards are much clearer on medical articles, and it's all spelled out if you will read the pages linked. Once you've done that, we'll be better able to help you learn how to add content to Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time posting all the policy and guideline pages. Forget my editting Wikipedia, I give up, and I will respectfully request edits until I see that is a futile endeavor as well. However, your reply does not speak to the non-neutral fallacies, with slim to no documentation, that currently exist in Asperger's Syndrome, Thimerosal, etc. articles that claim/imply "the final word" on autism causations/connections, yet somehow escape editting and/or elimination. In other words, it is clear that an obvious bias is allowed to go un-challenged (even by extensive decades of documented scientific investigations). Sincerely, Yankhadenuf (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf[reply]

Should you change your mind, this page is an overview that may help guide your editing: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. If you can propose changes to text based on MEDRS-compliant sources, I'm sure you'll have a willing audience. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Bravo Good Yank!

Bravo good Yank!

You've made my wiki night.

Seipjere (Canucknowhatumean) (talk) 00:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I'll keep a record of my progress (re thimerosal) on my talk page. Seipjere (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Seipjere(Canucknowhatumean LOL)! I apologize for belated acknowledgement, was battling stage 1 breast cancer 2012, dropped out of sight for awhile. Btw, I won! ;) Keep fighting the good fight against neurotoxins, carcinogens, teratogens... :) Yankhadenuf (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yank., (no trouble with belated response... clearly I'm worse.)

Hope your health is still well, and life's good. (Knock wood:-|)

Haven't been making much progress re thimerosal because (1) I'm generally quite busy, AND (2) I've adjusted my timeline substantially on how long I anticipate this thing playing-out. (I'm tremendously optimistic, BUT, if 'a watched pot never boils', this thing is probably best ignored for months at a time :-|). So don't go holding your breath on this one. Far better to just wait for the group-think gang to dwindle, enjoy life, and set things right when the time's right (whenever that might be).

Which reminds me: It's beautiful outside, and there's a dozen things I should be doing (:-).

So take it easy. (Drink some water, enjoy the sunshine, and... try to send someone reasonable to congress, would ya. ;-|)

Wishing you and yours the very best, sincerely, Seipjere (Canucknowhatumean) 99.224.230.229 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lou_Reed The_Velvet_Underground

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lou_Reed#The_Velvet_Underground The first line is incorrect > "Reed and Cale lived together on the Lower East Side, and after inviting Reed's college acquaintances, guitarist Sterling Morrison and drummer Maureen Tucker, to join the group, they formed the Velvet Underground."

Maureen Tucker was not a college acquaintance of Lou Reed, her brother Jim Tucker was. Lou Reed met Maureen(Moe) through Jim.Yankhadenuf (talk)yankhadenuf

April 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Charles Lindbergh, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Stop messing with the lede of the article. Please go to talk page and discuss. Consensus decides content. Edit warring will get you blocked. John from Idegon (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]