User talk:TimVickers
|
|
Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z
Barnstar
It was a while ago, but I haven't forgotten.
<Moved to trophy cabinet> :)
ref:deletion Satish Babu
Hi, The page Satish Babu was deleted on 13th of February.It was about the contributions of a journalist to the Regional Media. Can you let me know how it could find relevance and where i can find the deleted page? User:Madhuritalluri(talk)
Admiration
I admire your image works !
Thanks!
thank you very much!!! You´ve been very useful, keep in touch! blitox
RfA Thanks
Thank you
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
April 2008
OK :)
Barnstar
Moved to trophy cabinet.
Thanks!
Moved to trophy cabinet
Well done
Moved to trophy cabinet.
For your help on Pulmonary contusion
Moved to trophy cabinet
User:MDCCCXLVIII - probable sockpuppet
You recently blocked Standingout (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Undercovergals (talk · contribs). "New" user MDCCCXLVIII (talk · contribs) has proposed a series of questionable article merges, including tweaking one originally proposed by Standingout a few days ago. I would file a sockpuppetry case but (a) I'm unfamiliar with the puppetmaster and (b) a stroll through their contributions will probably convince you. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, Standingout (talk · contribs) signed several posts with the similar "mcmlxxxviii ", so that moves it from probable to almost certain (for me, anyway). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Please note [1]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Strange edit
As noted at the top of my talk page, this is a notification for a reference not in the article. Feel free to work it in there (I won't spoil the surprise, if you're interested in chloroplasts you'll possibly find the data quite intriguing indeed) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Tried that. It doesn't work, the sources simply get dumped in the Talk archive or are never dealt with, and a proposal to add a "missing references" section to Talk pages as ToL standard never went off. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing's better than a naked scotsman
|
This user enjoys contributing to Wikipedia without wearing clothes. |
WLU (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Horizontal gene transfer edit war
Please look at the recent history of Horizontal gene transfer. I'm no expert on this, so maybe I'm wrong. Please do whatever you think best. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
OMM
Perhaps this reference would help bolster your position. [2] Mmyotis (^^o^^) 19:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- That source has a reputation as an industry front group. Columns on organization websites (outside of the gov't) in general are not really "published" enough to cover BLP concerns in my mind, and that's an organization with an especially bad reputation. OM is not a pseudoscience per se, especially now that vitamin C is being studied again for cancer with interesting results.[3] There's also a trial on the schizophrenia thing going on. These are happening because there are recognized flaws in the 60s literature. II | (t - c) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Pushing science is always a good thing, even if the group gets funding from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Johnson and Johnson et al. The pharmaceutical companies, despite their warts (and they have more warts than a good sized ogre), invest more in basic scientific and medical research than any government could ever imagine. They might be looking for the almighty dollar in the next statin that drops cholesterol by 0.0001%, but they brought statins to the market, which reduces cardiovascular disease significantly. And your reference for Vitamin C is laughable. Levine clearly states that the the results are a long way from "prime time." Do you know how many things in science are tried and failed? I follow baseball closely, wait, the metaphor will make sense, and every team claims they have the next Koufax or Ruth, but oftentimes, they have me (in other words, totally incapable of throwing a curveball or hitting one). Vitamin C might work, might not. We're 20 years away from any clinical proof that it does in any manner that is safe and efficacious. But read carefully, Levine states that it has to be delivered intravenously, meaning don't go down to your local GNC to scarf 2000 kg of Vitamin C. Or don't buy orange juice futures. :D OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Here's what I ask: if you want to claim that OMM is a pseudoscience, you need a good reference which discusses, at length, how OMM falls into the criterion of pseudoscience. It should reference the studies which have been done on orthomolecular medicine's claims. The paper you referenced (unpublished) does not do that. The most scholarly, referenced source on the subject is Melascino (sp), which I'd suggest you check out. Marlin, intravenous has been the preferred administration method in orthomolecular medicine for a long time. II | (t - c) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- OMM proponents take legitimate studies and reinterpret them unscientifically to satisfy their claims. That's what makes them pseudoscience. There are no reliable OMM studies because OMM is not recognized by mainstream research laboratories as a legitimate field of inquiry. What there are are people who document practices and claims that constitute pseudoscience. These are the good references that document that OM falls into the criterion of pseudoscience. And the number and quality of references identifying OMM as pseudoscience is more than adequate to justify inclusion of the infobox. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 01:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- OM is pseudoscience? :) I happen to agree with II. If there's no verification of OMM being pseudoscience, then we can't invent it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Since one cannot logically perform studies to verify that any particular field is either a science or a pseudoscience, that seems a rather absurd criterium. But perhaps I don't understand what you mean. What would you require as adequate verification? I would argue that your answer, if it is reasonable and legitimate, must also be adequate for verifying that a particular field is a science. Perhaps we should continue this discussion in the infobox section of the OMM talk page where it originated. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- OM is pseudoscience? :) I happen to agree with II. If there's no verification of OMM being pseudoscience, then we can't invent it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- OMM proponents take legitimate studies and reinterpret them unscientifically to satisfy their claims. That's what makes them pseudoscience. There are no reliable OMM studies because OMM is not recognized by mainstream research laboratories as a legitimate field of inquiry. What there are are people who document practices and claims that constitute pseudoscience. These are the good references that document that OM falls into the criterion of pseudoscience. And the number and quality of references identifying OMM as pseudoscience is more than adequate to justify inclusion of the infobox. Mmyotis (^^o^^) 01:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- The self-published paper used by TimVickers (which uses the word orthomolecular a scant one time, and devotes only a few sentences to the topic, no references) discusses the basic criterions of a pseudoscience. The two major ones are: 1) scientific implausibility and 2) lack of testability/falsifiability. Orthomolecular medicine is uncertain on both counts. Nutrients, broadly termed, to treat certain diseases is not implausible, especially since they are used for certain rare genetic conditions, and since certain ones do have a demonstrable effect on hormones. Most of the OMM's treatments haven't been tested in 30 years, and the criticisms on the tests from Pauling and others have been ignored. Does anyone mind if I move this discussion over to orthomolecular medicine? II | (t - c) 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
On Slrubenstein's page I pointed out to this editor the page Mathematical Association of America as a random example. He unwisely did a search on "Mathematical Association of America" and "negroes" and included the results of his findings in a sentence very near the beginning of the article. However, he used two primary sources (letters fully reproduced in a book without commentary) in preparing his comment. So what he wrote counts as WP:OR. He seems to be gaming the system. I have cleaned up the article, with three new references, in a properly encyclopedic way. I wonder whether you could give him a warning for disruptive behaviour, because he seems to have some problems as to what the purpose of this encyclopedia is. It is not here for him to prove a WP:POINT by capricious edits, because that is simply disruption, for which he could be blocked. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have responded over on the talk page of the article in question. The book has plenty of commentary in the pages just before the letters. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- This editor is continuing to add an unbalanced account of the history of the MAA to make a WP:POINT. He is attempting to add controversy into the article for some reason best known to himself. I have no time to waste on undergraduate antics, so others can deal with him. Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Lyme disease updates
I recently updated the discussion on the controversies section of lyme disease because the section currently misleads readers into believing that four different reputable organizations support one theory. However all of those sources themselves do not perform their own research but rely on guidelines that were found corrupt by the conneticut attorney general from another organization (IDSA). There is no mention in the entire page on lyme disease about ILADS which is an international research based organization consisting of physicians currently treating these diseases. The fact that it was changed is very discerning due to the reputable sources cited. It may be hard to believe corruption and bribery (which violations of anti-trust laws are) exist in such large organizations, but until it is pointed out and fixed misinformation and miseducation continues. I ask that if you don't appreciate what I added that you do some research and editing instead, because as it stands the information is no less corrupt than that which resulted from bribes the IDSA accepted. A separate problem is there is so much mention and reference to IDSA when they've been found to be corrupt and no mention of ILADS and all the research they've done around the world. Pryorka82 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- There is reference to ILADS - their guidelines for Lyme disease treatment are cited in the article, currently reference #81.
- "Corruption and bribery" are either exaggerations or downright fabrications based on the claims of one side of a dispute in which no legal charges of any sort were brought, much less decided. Thus, their absence from the article is a reflection of Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and neutrality.
- Please take a look at Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, appropriate sourcing, neutrality (particularly undue weight), and the issue of multiple account use or recruitment of editors to advance a specific agenda. Among many other things, Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy, nor a place to Right Great Wrongs. MastCell Talk 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have since posted references on the lyme discussion page that I'm hoping people will take the time to read. I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, appropriate sourcing, neutrality. Where we have a problem is on the neutrality of the subject. The subject is heavily weighted with one point of view therefore not neutral. One sentence on the position taken by a differing organization (ILADS) is referenced. Which is followed by texts suggesting just the opposing view. Even mentioning death from sepsis to add to that point of view instead of death by infection which would be the other road that could be traveled. This is the problem with neutrality that I'm trying to get addressed. Stop being so hypocritical quoting Among many other things, Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy, nor a place to Right Great Wrongs. While I'm trying to get editors to stop this and quit advocating one point of view it puts your intentions in question by saying that. Understand what is meant by one sided arguements and unjust support of single points of view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument . This hurts the purpose of wikipedia.
Further understanding of what corruption entails is also needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption Understand that antitrust violations for personal gain at the expense of the people the organization is suppose to support is by definition corruption.
Nineteen members of Congress recently sent a letter to the CDC requesting that agency to review the IDSA guidelines, which they said have "the potential to effectively shut down" all treatment of chronic Lyme disease. So this is not a minority matter as was suggested.
Please do some reading.Pryorka82 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
what is a species?
Tim, can you show me where you moved the material on species I wrote and sourced? I was surprised - I thought you too were disatisfied with the current article. But I have no problem with moving wehat I wrote here if you and GetAgrippa and others would be working on it and improving it in order to reinsert it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. What is the time-table for moving things from the draft to the article? What is the process for working on the draft? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 03:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wha ... ?
Are you going American on us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I dunno, know what I mean? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
RCSB
Restore away :-) I didn't see anything to the effect of being copyright-free when I looked at the page, and there was nothing listed on the image description page such as a link that you left me, so I didn't know that it was free. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Wording
The wording sounds fine to me, although I'm not sure what measure of plausibility we're employing. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea. I don't know much of anything about Orthomolecular medicine; certainly not its standing with mainstream science. If you provided supporting sources, that would be helpful. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, certainly by the measure of the existence of atoms and molecules, orthomolecular medicine is more plausible. My issue, though, is that there is no evidence that orthomolecular medicine is any more effective than magic water memory. What's worse, orthomolecular medicine has the potential to be much more harmful than homeopathy, for example. People can die of vitamin overdoses, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- People can, and actually do, drown in their bathtub. Surely you are not against bathing!--Alterrabe (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OMM
I think the propopsed wording could be improved; orthomolecular medicine is not regarded as unscientific, but as not scientifically proven. There is no understanding of the theory how homeopathy is supposed to work, on the other hand. Why some orthomolecular therapies should work is clear, the question is whether they do.
How about: This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as not scientifically proven?"--Alterrabe (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Blocked sock using talk page for soapbox
See here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- It is continuing. Should I ask elsewhere for page protection? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Idiopathic inflammatory diseases
Hey Tim, I see you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology (2nd nomination) and deleted Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. I draw attention to the AfD template on Idiopathic inflammatory diseases, which also points to the same AfD. I think this is due to User:DRosenbach's page move during the course of the AfD "19:17, 14 August 2008 DRosenbach (Talk | contribs) moved Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology to Idiopathic inflammatory diseases (this would be the proper terminology) (revert)". I'm no sure how these things work, I would have thought that there would be nothing at Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology to delete after the move, but it seems to me that Idiopathic inflammatory diseases ought also to be deleted. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, unsure what all got crossed here but isn't this Idiopathic inflammatory diseases the deleted article? Banjeboi 04:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The author has provided reliable sources on which this article could be based, please review the AfD discussion and consider whether or not your vote remains the same. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to copy the contents into another language Wiki?
Hi! Could I copy the contents of the protein box, for example, from the NOTCH1 when I create a page in the Russian Wiki? If yes, how do I do this? Thanx. --CopperKettle (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry!
I realize I have been doing a lot of reverts, in fact a good deal of them were my own...my computer has been acting really crappy, while I am typing it takes me back in my text and erases things! Anyway, I agree I have been a bit edit happy of late, I will try to not do that so much. Thanks for your warning and I apologize.Jumacdon (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)