User talk:RetroS1mone

/Archive 1

AfD nomination of Nightingale Research Foundation

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nightingale Research Foundation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingale Research Foundation. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Lyme Disease

Hi RetroS1mone, I started editing Lyme Disease in the 10 minutes between your article edit and your talk page edit, so I did not see your talk page edit, otherwise I would have responded to it before making my change. Personally, I try to commit talk page & main page edits almost simultaneously, a habit I got into on high-traffic, contentious pages I've worked on in the past. In any case, I'm happy that we're making progress on the article, and I hope you agree it's looking better, too. I don't have any time right now to look at your most recent edits, but will certainly take a look later. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

I'd like to email you a document. Could you either activate your email facility or send me a message that I can respond to? JFW | T@lk 18:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I put on my email!! RetroS1mone talk 00:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:SOAPBOX

Hello, RetroS1mone. You have new messages at Jock Boy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Changes to Allen Steere Biography page

I made a few changes to Allen Steere's biography page. My own opinion is that the original form was rather slanted towards being something of a hagiography of Steere, and I was trying to make it more neural. It is important to mention the Blumenthal controversy as this is certainly an event which had media coverage in relation to Steere's life and views, and I am sure that those around him would regard it as a significant event. Is it permissible to mentiontion the Blumenthal report on the Steere biography page?

Talk:AIDS denialism

Hi. Please do not delete other peoples' posts from Talk Pages, as you did here. The entire point of such pages is for editors to discuss ways to improve the article, and this sometimes includes discussing the points on which they disagree. If you feel that 80.237.191.141's assertions were false, then the proper thing to do is to ask him/her for sources to support them, or provide sources yourself that supports the opposite, or both, as User:Verbal did subsequent to 80.237.191.141's post. "Libel" is a legal term that is adjudicated between the person making the statement and the person about whom they've spoken. We do not possess the legal authority to make this determination, nor delete posts for that reason. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:TALK though, and the WP:BLP policy. Verbal chat 06:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK Nightscream "potential libel" there is a tag at top of Robert Gallo talk page, it says unsourced or poorly sourced potentially libellous material will be removed, also true for other times wp:blp is coming up. That section from ip should be blanked, wp:talk and wp:blp and also wp:soapbox. Take a sec and read those policies pls. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 16:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The banner at the top of that page refers indeed to that article: The Robert Gallo article. That's an article, and a BLP one. It does not, however, pertain to Talk Pages. Talk: AIDS denialism is neither a BLP nor an article. Beyond this, I'm not sure what you mean by "other times WP:BLP comes up" or "section from ip", or the rest of that section. I assure you I am familiar with the relevant policies. Thanks. :-) User:Nightscream 03:28, 6 November 2008

WP:BLP says in the lead "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." That is what I did. RetroS1mone wtalk 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion in which the poster and dissenter present evidence/arguments and counterarguments regarding whether material is reliably sourced is the proper way to respond to contentious material, and not censorshop or re-editing of another editor's posts. How else is a determination made of a source's reliability? Does one editor get to make that call unilaterally, with all other editors not allowed to review the matter so that they can discuss it as part of WP:Consensus? Who gets to make that call? If the topic of the article is AIDS denialism (and not Robert Gallo), and that article must present, among other things, the views of the most prominent denialists, then how can we simply delete a post if that editor is pointing to a book that contains denialist assertions? Indeed, look at all those posts that followed the (now-deleted) post by that anonymous editor, in which they refute his/her post. How can you have the refutation if you don't have the original post that it's made in response to? How are readers supposed to understand the context of that discussion? Wikipedia, after all is not censored, and WP:Censor states that "content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed." To my knowledge, the post in question was not so judged, in Florida, or elsewhere.

As for your statement: "Pls don't make accusings of people until you read policies" Putting aside the fact that I don't know what you mean by "Pl", and I'm not sure why you use the word "accusings", you really should not presume to accuse others of not reading policies. It's one thing to point out policies; it's another thing to sarcastically imply that others are not familiar with them, as it may be seen as a violation of WP:Civility. You might also want to check out WP:CENSOR and WP:Ignore all rules, since those also apply. Emphasizing one policy to the exclusion of all others, and acting on that policy without discussion, and accusing other editors of not being familiar with policies because you get into a conflict with them, isn't exactly civil.

As far as signatures, everyone at one point or another may forget to sign their posts, and while placing a template message to that effect is not a bad idea for new or unregistered users, it really isn't necessary to so for an admin who's been editing for almost four years if they neglected to do so in one instance. I've been told that using template messages in this manner can be seen by some as uncivil. It's one thing to admonish such people if it's habitual; it's not necessary for one isolated instance, which you didn't even bother to identify for me. (Where was the unsigned post?) Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You just said in your unsigned comment up there, poorly sourced remarks about Robert Gallo are only blp violation on a biography article. That is not what blp says, so you were not familiar with what blp says, I was not being sarcastic I was observing. Blp it applies on namespace, talk, user, everything. You can't say, Robert Gallo forged notebooks, Gallo is a fraud, that is not valid discussion of article, that is blp violation. You can't say that stuff and use a self published book or personal website as your source like the ip adress there did. BLP says that stuff gets deleted right away w/o explanation. I don't care if you are here four years or four minutes, blp is not some minor thing to wikilawyer about. I see a violation, I delete it. That is not censorship, just like wp:censor says. When you delete blp that is not censorship. Thats all i am saying i am sorry when you disagree with policy RetroS1mone talk 04:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"That is not what blp says, so you were not familiar with what blp says." Not knowing every single line of every single policy page is not the same thing as not being familiar with a policy. Can you recite every line of every policy and guideline from memory? Dismissing another editor in this manner because they do not have every WP page memorized word for word by claiming that this somehow means that they do not know policy is not civil. I concede that I missed that portion of the policy, as prescribing removing such material from Talk Pages presents some problems, for which I've started a discussion on Jimbo Wales' Talk Page.

"You can't say, Robert Gallo forged notebooks, Gallo is a fraud, that is not valid discussion of article, that is blp violation." BLP refers to an article that is a Biography of a Living Person. AIDS denialism is not a biography of a living person. It is, however, a controversial topic, and it is not appropriate for one editor to declare unilaterally what is "valid" or "not valid" if there is room for discussion. Do you plan on removing everyone else's posts in that thread in which they responded to User: 80.237.191.141? If not, then how does that thread make sense without the context of the original post they were responding to? How will future readers make sense of that thread?

"That is not censorship, just like wp:censor says." As I pointed out to you, WP:Censor does not say that one editor can unilaterally make a declaration of libel, which was your original assertion in your Edit Summary. That requires a legal determination, which WP:Censor touches upon this when it mentions that such material that violates Florida law.

"Thats all i am saying i am sorry when you disagree with policy" Please do not presume that anything and everything you do as an editor is the one and only proper fulfillment of Wikipedia policy, and that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow "disagreeing with policy". The truth is that policy, and the proper interpretation of it, is something that editors disagree about all the time, and such disagreements must be resolved using the proper procedures. It is my position that deleting someone's post as you did is 'not appropriate, and is itself a violation of policy. You disagree, and I understand that. That means a determination must be made, if not for this particular situation, then certainly for a future one. It does not mean, that one editor can dogmatically declare that he is right, the other one is wrong, and that will be the end of it. Acting in this way is not in keeping with the spirit of collaboration and consensus.

"You did not sign your comment at my talk page where you said you were familiar with blp policy but you said it only was for actual article namespace of biographies. I am sorry I did not look at how long you are contribuing I was giving you a frinedly reminder." Sorry about that. And thank you. I've now fixed it. :-)

"Pls do not accuse me of incivility as you have now done a few times in last post." The issue is whether certain behavior is perceived to be incivil. If it is, then it is reasonable to warn editors of that. Speaking as if anyone who does not share your interpretation of policy doesn't "know" it is not civil. That the material in question is a BLP violation is your opinion, and remains a matter to be discussed. Nightscream (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nightscream I am very sorry when you think I am incivil I am not trying to be. I was thinking you did not know blp because the part about applying on articles, talk page etc is at the top and it is repeated later. Now I know you know more about policies then I do and I did not know how long your contributing and I did not know you are administrator. I apologize i was not trying to be incivil, please forgive me for that.

A person says, "Nightscream is a fraud and forged documents" and gives a personal website, my interpretation of blp is, that should get deleted and we can ask questions later like is the webcite a reliable source. May be I am wrong I responded at Jimbo talk page and I will learn from what he says.

Thank you for the advise, I will try to worry more about how my sayings are percieved by other people and try not to be incivil. Thank you RetroS1mone talk 05:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as the deleted material, you did not establish that the material was "libelous" or "potentially libelous", nor that any personal website was cited in that post. The only url I see in that post is a dead link, but the user also cited a book and an interview, and there is no obvious clue that they were self-published. If it was libelous, then it should've been determined to be libelous. In citing those sources, that user met the burden of proof, at least apparently. If another user sees that those sources were self-published, then the burden then falls to that other user to point this out, and give at least a cursory explanation as to how they know this. Merely saying it's libelous in an edit summary doesn't do this. If it were, then I could theoretically delete all of your posts by merely claiming libel in my Edit Summaries, without elaborating further right? :-)

As for your admonishment regarding Jimbo's Talk Page, well, if you feel this way, then why have you continued to speak there yourself?

As far as the incivility thing, I was going to respond by saying, "Don't sweat it; water under the bridge", but while composing this post, I see that you couldn't resist editing your own post by adding yet another personal accusation, this time about my being "tendentious", and about "how I look", etc. You could've kept it civil by leaving your post the way it was, but I now see that it's pointless to keep going over this point with you, and will not continue this dialogue with you. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Simone,

Nightscream asked me to talk to you about this edit summary. I looked into the situation. While you are right that the potentially libelous edit should not be linked to from the note saying it was removed, you needn't go accusing Nightscream of "promoting blp violations" unless you have some sort of evidence that that's what he's trying to do, per WP:AGF. Since the note was Jimbo and MastCell's suggestion, the smart thing to do would have been to remove just the link and not be so inflammatory in your edit summary. We all make mistakes sometimes ... it's not grounds for an immediate revert of the entire note. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thx, I responded at your talk, but I will defend my self here. We all make mistakes, i do also, alot, but Nightscream's link was not a "mistake" it was an on-going problem with wp:blp this administrator keeps having. BLP says removing unsourced or poorly sourced without discussion. Nightscream started this thread saying a thing is a blp violation only when a court makes that judgment. Later it had to be a Florida court. Nightscream also said blp does not apply on talk pages. That is totaly not WP:BLP. No we do not all know every word from every policy but when I do not understand some policy I look for it and read it. Nightscream had the wrong idea and restored blp violations w/o looking up the source, asking me about it, or any thing.

More then two weeks, now, back and forth. Nightscream said they were wrong about blp is for talk pages also, but Nightscream also gives examples at Jimbos talk about potential blp violations and says they should not get removed before discussion. People, this is not an interperetation problem. Interperetation, that is like,

• Should I just remove blp problem?
• Should I remove and replace with a note?
• Should it get over-sited?

I do not know how you interpret "removed immediately without discussion" as "wait til you ask for a source and the person gives a source and you discuss if it is reliable" like Nightscream said at Jimbo talk page here is example from Nightscream about blp,

• "I know that Jane Doe Actress peformed a sex act on a total stranger at a nightclub!"
• "Source?"
• "It's on Page XYZ of the September 18, 2008 issue of People magazine/New York Times/TimeOut New York!"
• "Okay, let's see if we can find a copy of that, so let's discuss it."

I am very tired on arguing about this, bc WP:BLP is so clear, but it is worrying me what will happen on WP when BLP is not followed specially by admins. RetroS1mone talk 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ETA

Hi - thanks for your message. I am not very familiar with the dispute, and I have declined to take sides in it. I do encourage everyone involved to engage in discussion on the talk page of the article. Please note that I have fully protected the article, which is currently only editable by administrators, so anonymous users are at no disadvantage here. Warofdreams talk 03:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(reply to retro) I'm well aware of 3RR and haven't broken it so kindly lay off the false accusations. Per the guidelines, terrorist can be mentioned provided it is sourced and attributed - this is in accordance with numerous wikipedia policies including Consensus, NPOV and RS. The only people changing to terrorist are a series of IPs who may well be the same person. The lead is already in accordance with those policies although I'm open to a change from "armed" to whatever you suggest. Valenciano (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Despite the tone of previous messages I think we largely agree on the article - we just approach it from different angles. I hope no offence was taken and you'll continue to give input there. Regards, Valenciano (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for, at least, having tried it. I do agree with most of your comments at that article's talk page. It is a pity that, rather sooner than later, the IRA/ETA apologist bunch imposed their martial law. In cases like this one is where wikipedia shows its most obvious limits. But at least you tried and I thank you for that. Mountolive _{le déluge} 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

Take a look at your email one of these days... just a bit o' information for you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Curious

To respond to your question RetroS1mone we are all in a class at George Mason University. Our professor’s number one goal this semester was to integrate the class into the Wikipedia community. We all read journal articles from Nature on a certain topics and are required to edit Wikipedia pages related to the information we have learned throughout the semester. There will be a lot of cross editing going on in the next couple of weeks, so you are bound to see a couple more users ending with -GMU out there. Dkabban-GMU (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Re your message

No problems, hopefully it's all been dealt with now (and I'll be watching that from now on anyway). Thanks for your note ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

CFS

You are currently editwarring on several articles related to CFS. I have filed report. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Pls have another look at WP:3RR, also remeber warning is to go before you file a report. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 22:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought so to, but the page has changed significantly and it now seems only required for new and inexperienced users. Also it's not just for 3RR violations anymore, but for editwarring in general. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring being the thing that hasn't been shown. Verbal chat 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

More then four edits any where in WP in one day is logically edit warring when it is from some one not Guido or on his list about respected editors. Also logically any edits Guido does not like are edit warring. They are also vandalism so when Guido reverts he is not violating 3RR. Slow by slow i think i am getting it. RetroS1mone talk 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You know that what you were doing is problematic. I'm glad that you didn't get blocked though - I don't believe that anything good comes from blocking editors; now, please try to work with me, and you will find me friendly and generous enough. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

He files a report,but he didn't want you blocked. It's almost as if he expected it to be thrown out as frivolous. Verbal chat 21:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try assuming good faith for a change, or at least not butt in to vent at every opportunity. RetroS1mone, I suggest that you ignore such admin theatrics, they are not very helpful to either of us. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Good work on David Baltimore

I just want to thank you for the many improvements you just made to the David Baltimore article. I discovered that article myself a month or so ago in shockingly bad state, having been extensively edited by people whose knowledge of Baltimore seemed to come exclusively from the writings of Serge Lang. When I saw on my watchlist this morning that somebody had made extensive edits, I wondered if one of those POV-pushers had returned. But you really did an excellent and economical cleanup. One of the great pleasures of Wikipedia is making the best changes you can and then discovering that a stranger just showed up to make your work even better. betsythedevine (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Chronic fatigue syndrome

• You are currently close to breaching WP:3RR on Chronic fatigue syndrome treatment, with 3 reverts within a few hours. Please stop, this behaviour is disruptive and unacceptable. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• You are currently close to breaching WP:3RR on Clinical descriptions of chronic fatigue syndrome, with 3 (blocks of) reverts in just over 24 hours. Please stop, this behaviour is disruptive and unacceptable. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You should have a look at WP:3RR. Groups of consecutive edits are counting like one revert. But I guess that does not apply for me just you. RetroS1mone talk 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome

Hi, since you have previously shown an interest in the topic of CFS, this is to inform you that I have started an attempt to resolve a long list of existing disputes on Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. You are welcome to participate. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

GDB's talk page

Hi RS,

May I suggest, as someone who has done it before, that you refrain from posting on Guido's talk page? If you check my own contribution history on that page, I'm a horrible hypocrite to offer this advice. But if the purpose is to convince Guido the error of his ways, then you won't succeed and it ends up making me, you and everyone else who does it, look petty. The admins who entertain unblock requests will check and make their own decisions. I think it's unlikely they'll be on his side. For the purposes of edit warring, the result is essentially the same (24 hours without an edit war). Anyway, good work on CFS, and a remarkable job on restraining yourself with Guido (keep it up! Good luck!), and remember that sometimes we have to grit our teeth and remember that the purpose is to improve the project. Even if the process is like pulled through a woodchipper. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:STICK. Not quite the best link ever, but close. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I love it when people agree with me. Warms the cockles of my heart. To be fair, I don't think you're beating a dead horse for most of the watchers of the page. But for Guido, whom the block is essentially supposed to help, you probably are. If it'll make you feel better, I've not only beaten the dead horse, I've ground it to a paste, spread it on bread and served it to my friends. I've then beaten where the horse-paste used to be, to the point that it dug a hole deep enough to run a hydrothermal generating station. I then used that electricity to run the computer on which I continued beating that horse. I had to buy a company to make me special sticks. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiya RetroS1mone,

Guido has posted a reply to your comment, purporting to educate you about edit warring and editing anothers' comments. As usual, I would characterize the interpretation of policy as unusual, and suggest that there are better places to learn about policy. But mostly I'm giving one last nudge towards "don't bother", thus proving that even when someone agrees with me, I'll still beat that horse with a brutality normally reserved for step-children and naughty puppies. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is good advice that I should heed also. Verbal chat 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first one to admit that it's very difficult to avoid wanting to correct GDB's statements. There's even a rational basis to do so initially, under the belief that a) they can be corrected and b) it's just a simple misunderstanding. I've never seen him back away from a point, and it's not simple. Many a time I've sailed forth triumpahntly, ready to conquer the talk page with a stunning demonstration of how a simple reading of the relevant policy or guideline neatly demonstrates the correct interpretation of things, only to be boarded by pirates of stubbornness. It takes a couple cycles to realize you're just wasting your time. It's a complete waste of time when it's on his talk page (and during a block), it's a hideous waste of time, resources, temper and hard drive space when it's any other talk page and it's actively interfering with progress. I'm much less reluctant to dispense "back away from the horse and put down the stick" when it's a real talk page, just because of the impact I expect to see on an actual article.

Plus, the drama tastes like fresh Georgia peaches, and I hear it actually slows the ageing process.^{[citation needed]} WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of fascinating watching it though. I will really try and heed your advice now that I endorsed. (I edited your comment there - feel free to slap me for it) Verbal chat

It's all over now anyway (this part) and I got quoted... Yay! Sorry for butting in here :) Verbal chat 15:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I consider discussions like this a combination of a safety valve, and a way of not feeding the drama. I can't believe that WP:DRAMA redirects to ANI. But we should probably stop hijacking RetroS1mone's talk page. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've only dealt with Guido for going on 18 hours or so right now and I'm already sick of him. There's something to be said about the futility of running full speed into a concrete wall, picking yourself up and doing it again, over and over because next time might be the time it finally caves in. I commend you all for dealing with it on a day to day basis. I'm just not that patient of a person. Trusilver 17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we've all bought that t-shirt. This is the first time I've really, solidly tried, to minimize my postings on that particular page with a block on. If you want a real treat, read through the history of it diff-by-diff, you'll see why I've given up and am urging others to. I don't know if Guido thrives on the attention/drama or not, but since it's ultimately futile, I just gave up. To his credit, William M. Connolley isn't responding to Guido calling him a liar - I'm taking that as my example and not bothering to try to correct the misunderstandings. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

RetroS1mone, I've replied on my talk page to your comments there. I also gave Guido some advice, but he seems to have rejected it. I've probably done all I can here, though when discussing another editor (as you and others do above), could you (and the others) please remember that that editor is likely to be reading it? I have a personal policy of trying not to comment on blocked editors on other pages (outside their talk page or noticeboards) while they are blocked, as they are unable to respond and correct any misunderstandings. It is particularly frustrating for the blocked user when the discussion get humorous at their expense. Anyway, as I said, that's about all I can do here. Need to go and do other stuff now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In most cases I'd call that excellent advice, but when the alternative is another pitched battle on GDB's talk page, I'm less likely to agree. I suppose for similar venting in the future, it would be a situation where I would support email.

RS1, I'd originally composed the following on Carcharoth's talk page, but ultimately decided it wasn't the appropriate venue. So here's my comment instead:

FWIW, I can see why RetroS1mone is getting frustrating - the area is very controversial and Retro is fighting an uphill, one-lady battle. Guido alone is enough to keep a normal editor busy full-time. And because the talk page comes across to new editors as adversarial, every edit becomes a battle. Tempers shorten, replies get snippy, it becomes us-versus-them, the page polarizes and it overflows to every new editor (see any talk page related to creationism for instance). It also gets harder to WP:AGF and harder to apologize or admit new points of view. See [[Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Exaggeration of CBT effectiveness|here]] for a current example. Retro is engaging in a slow, thankless task that sucks all joy from editing, the reason why most of us are here in the first place, and it would be sad to lose another editor who demonstrates such facility with the expert sources that are supposed to be the bedrock of wikipedia. It's why I, and probably many others, get so frustrated to see another admin step in to 'help' (read, encourage, even if it's actually critical) Guido and have it end up in the same spot we were in three months before. So what's my point? I don't really know, I guess I'm trying to say I think RetroS1mone's edit summary was out of line, but I completely understand why. I also think that RetroS1mone is an editor who would give the table a fair hearing (and has - see here, where she actually takes the table and begins a discussion of the points judged to have merit).

To which I'll add, it's totally in poor taste to discuss another editor when they can't comment (or even if they can); is it better than what would have been the alternative (to go by past history, the outcome would have been numerous contributions periodically blanked with no change in editing pattern or approach) is a question I can't answer. I hope the next time this happens (and I firmly believe there will be a next time), we can remember this discussion. We're all human, you can't blame us, but it's best to try to learn from past mistakes (allow me to one more time wave the hypocrite flag here - above everyone else I'm probably most guilty of not taking my own advice). WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 02:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all for helping me, my edit summary was a mistake and i should not of done it, i thanked Carcharoth for advice. RetroS1mone talk 04:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldda been worse, I just saw an edit summary containing the words "fuck you all". TimVickers and SandyGeorgia are fountains of unceasing civility in my experience. I don't know how they do it. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 13:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

David Baltimore article, description of Serge Lang

I apologize -- it appears to have been an accurate description, and thus not slander. I still think it's a violation of WP:NPOV, though, and I've written on Talk:David Baltimore to discuss my concerns. Since you reverted my edit, you're welcome to chime in. Best, Ray (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment travb (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Content discussions on various CFS pages

Hi RetroS1mone,

I'm working on a draft for an AN posting regards guido here; one section is titled "content disputes>cfs" - as you'd expect, it's about pure content related disputes. I don't have the time to wade through all the discussions and arguments on the sub-articles I never edited (etiology, pathophysiology, treatment, etc.) and I'm hoping you can provide me with a short-cut. Basically, whenever there's a push by Guido against consensus or towards his unsupported POV (ME isn't the same as CFS, it's a purely physical disorder), when consensus is clear or the articles cited are clearly mis-used, I'd like to have a section or diff to put there. Do you have the time? Even just section links would be great. Thansk, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Note ANI discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination)

A tag has been placed on Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen

To send the article to AfD go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. In tiny print it says, "(But if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)". If you need help let me know. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Somehow it got created in article space rather than the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion space. It's fixed now, here. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Some days I think that Wikipedia does stuff like that on purpose. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit [1]

A link needs to be provided to where Guido den Broeder said I and Tekaphor and others "edited in co-ordinate" with any group. If a link is not shown where Guido den Broeder stated this, I would also consider it a lie and irresponsible baseless asserting of false information on a discussion page in order to mislead editors. STOP NOW with the other accusations on talk pages against me RetroS1mone! Ward20 (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in no way connected with any of the editors you assert "edited in co-ordinate", but you have also tried to include me here: User_talk:Tekaphor. As a scientist I believe promoting any therapy beyond the available evidence is anti-science. I suggest you stop your smear campaign now. Sam Weller (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination)

Thank you for looking at the Vereniging Basisinkomen article. I have posted a further comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination) which may be of interest. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Neuro-immune fatigue

I went back to the references, you're right. I redirected the article to Chronic fatigue syndrome, but you can take it to an AfD. I think it would be a good candidate. --Jmundo (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

AGF and FAQ proposal

I posted a warning to Lassesen over AGF, although a more clear cut example of [2] also now is present, and User:RobinHood70 queried me over my even handiness (User talk:Davidruben#Warning Message).

Now Lassesen clearly been leading recent discussion with yourself and sciencewatcher and I agree you have been pointing out WP:MEDRS (indeed WP:RS) requirements of what & where information can be reliably cited from, all of which makes WP follow WP:NPOV (which includesWP:Weight balance) rather than "the truth" of WP:SPOV.

However leaving aside specifics (see my talk page response) and whilst my initial thought was perhaps to dismiss the comment on my talk page, the last point about the "gist" (User talk:Davidruben#Warning Message) got me thinking more widely and there is some merit/use from this. The overall discussion at Talk:CFS I can see suffering from curtness, which is perhaps understandable after the burnout everyone felt with the Guido affair (someone heavily patient group involved, pushing a particular viewpoint)... and so I can see that WP:Bite and not tarnishing different (albeit superficially similar real-world background) editors is important, or at very least not run the risk of being seen to tarnish (point about off site information intriguing and I'm sure you were thinking of WP:MEAT, but RobinHood70 correct about awkwardness of mentioning here and difficult to verify).

Given your very commendible open comments I've seen about self-RfC, and in good faith response to Rob's concerns over my even handiness, I'm sure you wont mind my being seen to add a few thoughts:

• If nothing else, the Guido events involved long and high-intensity discussions - a more measured discussion flow might have overall been better. By this I mean, as a fellow experienced eidtor, we need take care not to "feed the ..." and by our own actions risk escalating situations - eg in terms of not immediately responding back, of deliberately perhaps waiting 1-2 days to keep the topic as a simmer vs "on the boil". Finally not responding at undue length, as this risks being seen to invite a lengthy response back, as I am clearly doing now myself :-( For this risks talk pages becoming a forum debating the merits of a situation vs discussing the article within the narrow confines of WPs policies and guidelines as you well cite.
• Of being (seen to be) super nice - your posting of self-RfC details was most open of you, but I can see why that might have been misinterpreted as a challange (ie 'I dare you raise a RfC' which might be intimidating for a newer editor) rather than what I'm sure was your attempt to take an issue out of article talk space.
• Not repeating the same debates with new editors, but pointing them to the relevant past threads. I think I saw somewhere a suggestion to set up a talkpage FAQ linking to archived discussion - looks daunting and somewhat Herculean, but I can see merit in this for when another editor comes along wondering why a particular source (and the same ones do seem to be mentioned repeatedly) is not included etc...
  • As an experiment, I wonder if yourself, SW, Lassesen and anyone else who is interested might find common ground summarising and creating that FAQ over past discussions (gets a useful editor-feature set up, shows the newer editors some of the past discussions they may not already be aware of, gets the older-hands to see how discussion has changed over time (eg did introduction of WP:MEDRS help decide on certain aspects ?). More importantly, should be relatively easy to report in a fairly collaborative manner (eg like Wikipedia Signpost's scrupulous diplomacy in reporting contentious issues) and so form a basis for then working in the article talk space over new points, and in turn the article itself in a more harmonious manner ? David Ruben ^Talk 15:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you David Ruben, that is very kind to give this advice and I will try to follow when I can. I know how strong people feel about this, and I know it is also very difficult when you have a medical condition people do not know much about. I am hoping we can work together better then past and I am also worried about this on-going recruiting, recent comments are that recruiting means the article has to get changed. I will try!! Thx again for your help RetroS1mone talk 03:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Peterson (physician)

You are at the Wikipedia:3RR limit on this article. Ward20 (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ampligen

Hi Simone, just a quick personal thanks for your work on the Ampligen article. Looks much improved now! Thedreamdied (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!! There is a few things still to fix, i will try when I have time. RetroS1mone talk 12:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

--dermatology i agree it needs its own department but i cant seem to start a seperate page. can you start a page and put the info i had with the sources. the department is big and im sure the page will grow with time. it thought the center would be a good place to put the info since for now it isnt that much stuff. still, they have some notable things with sources. thanks

dermatology

Thank you!! There is a few things still to fix, i will try when I have time. RetroS1mone talk 12:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC) --dermatology i agree it needs its own department but i cant seem to start a seperate page. can you start a page and put the info i had with the sources. the department is big and im sure the page will grow with time. it thought the center would be a good place to put the info since for now it isnt that much stuff. still, they have some notable things with sources. thanks

im new to wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4ppeace (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

i was thinking, why do they have a notable patient section, but not a notable physician section. for example, to de-orphan the ronald p rapini page, it should link to people like that.

Bell's CFS Ability scale

I posted a reqest for comment on the talk page to get more input. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good, thank you. RetroS1mone talk 04:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Julia Newton

Great job on the Julia Newton article- where did you get all your info??? You missed out she attends the Richardson Research Group meetings with Byron Hyde etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.86.240 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

RetroS1mone Edits citing Reliable Source

Hi RetroS1mone, can you explain your ws:rs edits? I have referenced a source document that was released by the CIA to a requestor under Freedom of Information Act provisions. The document has a valid FOIA control # on it and is on CIA letterhead. Why is that not a reliable source? Further, regarding secrecy, this was a public inspection document authorized for release by the CIA FOIA office. What's the deal? The fact that the CIA is using this intellectual property is significant info. Thanks! HonestGeorgeWashington (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this. If it were on a verifiable and reliable source (Wikipedia definitions aren't the same as normal onces, so read those policies carefully), it would be a different matter, but your website can't be used as a source. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Peterson (physician) and David Sheffield Bell

RetroS1mone, you explained to me on my talk page why you thought Patricia Fennell and David Sheffield Bell are not notable and I explained I am trying to improve the articles.[3] If consensus determines they are not notable the articles will be deleted and so be it. I don't believe it is the job of a single editor (you) to predetermine notability.

Your edits on the articles Daniel Peterson (physician)[4] and David Sheffield Bell[5] removed accurate material from reliable sources, introduced original research, removed publications and awards, and introduced bias and weasel wording. Please stop doing this, it is not improving the articles and it is misleading the readers. Ward20 (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So far I have only looked at the David S Bell article, and I agree that RetroS1mone has removed accurate material from RS, introduced OR and weasal wording ([6] is another example). For someone that constantly goes on about RS and POV in other people's edits, RetroS1mone should have better standards about their own edits. For whatever reason, this editor seems to want to discredit Bell by associating him with (alleged) ME-itis naming advocacy and (supposed) unscientific ideas. In my experience on the CFS talkpage and article [7] RetroS1mone has a history of labelling anyone with a different interpretation/opinion as an "activist", and while saying that activism isn't bad outside Wikipedia, patronizingly dismisses whatever alleged-activists say on the talkpage, assumes they have all the same motives and opinions, usually automatically reverts their edits as activism regardless of the validity of the actual edit, and accuses the alleged-activists as being members of some secret "cabal". This behaviour at times has been rather disruptive, especially when significant minority opinions and uncertainties/issues with the research are routinely omitted. - Tekaphor (TALK) 12:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pls look up medrs and pls do not use my talk page to make fun of me, I am trying on helping the project. RetroS1mone talk 05:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC sought for dispute resolution on Daniel Peterson (physician)[8] Ward20 (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Posting mentioning my username

RetroS1mone - I don't know why Fxmastermind used my username in their above posting on your talk page, but it was without consulting me. The content appears to be a copy of something I posted on Fxmastermind's page directed to Fxmastermind.[9] Zodon (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thx Zodon, this user is just confused on reliable sources and has strong feeling about topic. I do not work at Merck, tho it is possible I am under mind control from a 1950 CIA plot. RetroS1mone talk 06:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the CIA are responsible for controlling the imaginary "CFS cabal" that you believe exists? :-) Tekaphor (TALK) 12:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

RetroS1mone. In that case - maybe better delete this message before reading. (Or fine to delete section after reading too.) Thanks. Zodon (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for guidance Zodon! I comply to the overlords!! O really I am sorry, there is not background but some people are angry at me bc I changed some from their articles from hey people my website says this to MEDRS and they do not like that. Nothing to serious RetroS1mone talk 05:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd editing behaviour at Babesia article

Hi. I note that you have made some substantive contributions to the Babesiosis article. The related Babesia page has been heavily edited by a temporary account (‘Nmunabi’) who apparently has knowledge of the subject. Yet he/she destroyed all the wikilinks and all the inline references, pasting in material over existing copy. I reconstructed the references before realizing quite what had happened. So my question to you is, were this guy’s edits useful, or vandalism? What was he up to?

I am not an expert in this area. Appreciate your insight at Talk:Babesia. Earthlyreason (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA [10]

RetroS1mone please don't attack other editors or suggest editors did somethng they did't say or do. Ward20 (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RetroS1mone, please stop the stream of false accusations. Unless you can demonstrate the alleged co-ordinated effort, COI, bullying, hatred, "they accuse me of being Guido", "they remove whatever they don't like", and a range of other inaccurate claims (eg person X said Y about Z), you're really just speculating about people and misrepresenting situations unhelpfully. Additionally, please stop saying one thing and doing another, for example, accusing someone of behaviour X and then performing the same behaviour yourself. You still threatening an "WP:ANI"? - Tekaphor (TALK) 10:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag team harassing, recruiting of Jagra, COI when people know personal things w/o reliable source. RetroS1mone talk 16:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this the "two users tried and failed" before an RfC?? RetroS1mone talk 17:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Retro, you've been hurling accusations about rampantly against other CFS-related editors for some time now. Whenever you've been asked for proof of anything like your above-mentioned harassment, recruiting, and Conflict of Interest, you redirect and provide no proof of anything. If you or anybody else would like to take these issues to an RfC or ANI, I think it would be more than welcome at this point. Just remember what they warn you about on the RfC page: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." --Rob (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet again I ask you not to accuse other editors of things without any proof, in this case "synthesis". As you will see on the talk page for Simon Wessely, my edits were in good faith, and almost exactly matched the conclusions of the source...quite the opposite of your accusation of "use the conclusions in the source over synthesis". --Rob (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"better reflect conclusions and statements in the various sources" is from you, that is synthesis. Use what Wessely said. RetroS1mone talk 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And again, I have to ask you to refrain from making accusations. In your very next reply on that page, you're now accusing me of being an SPA! There were multiple changes within the one edit, therefore there were various sources. Each change incorporated the text from one source. I used almost exactly what Wessely said, as you would see if you read the page. --Rob (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:David Sheffield Bell

FYI RFC requested. [11] Ward20 (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your questions [12]

RetroS1mone, When I used the word "this" on Sam Weller's page I was referring to "this current problem". See the title I put on the section. When I wrote, "Another editor also wondered if it was a sock", you're right I should have written that differently. I am sorry you took it personally and apologize to you. Frankly, I didn't think you would be monitoring Sam Weller's and my talk pages that closely, especially since we didn't use your name. When I wrote, ""I've never seen anything like it. The amount of extreme POV, evasion on talk page discussions, and OR is frustrating." I was referring to the edits RetroS1mone not your behavior.

Concerning your conflict of interest questions, I have stated at least 3 times I have no COI in response at talk pages. Your questions about who I have ever met, worked with, etc. at talk pages and articles I am editing is not appropriate. My statements that I have no conflict's of interest within the WIki definition for COI is sufficient. If you continue accusing me or asking me to divulge personal information I will consider it harassment. The same goes for you making personal attacks against me on talk pages or edit summaries. I hope that is clear enough for you. Ward20 (talk) 07:00, edited 9 June 2009 (UTC)Ward20 (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ,

Jared Jackson

Thank you for helping me out with this. I've been trying to de-bad the page, and encourage its previous contributors to do so, for a couple of weeks. I'm not too good at Being Bold, being mostly a sorter-out of typos and little grammar problems, so I'm glad that you were Bold enough to escalate the problem. Kay Dekker (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

As suggested by Mendaliv, I have filed a Wikiquette Alert about our ongoing concerns here. I tried to give a brief description of both sides of the issue, but if you feel I haven't expressed your side sufficently, by all means, feel free to add to the points I've made. --Rob (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx for the alert Rob RetroS1mone talk 23:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Simon Wessely

Good changes. Fences and windows (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow I feel dumb!

Because I'm sure it's gonna raise your eyebrows if you look through my edit history... :)

The "Wow I feel dumb" link.

I was experimenting with the {{gender}} magic-word, and tried myself first and did a Show Preview, then tried a couple of other users, including you, just out of curiosity. I had intended to do a Show Preview, but wasn't paying attention and hit Save instead.

Anyway, I was pretty sure you'd be sitting there wondering what the hell I was doing if you went through my history, so I thought I should explain myself before you came across it. It was entirely innocent, and it was sheer bad luck that I should have hit Save on your name of all names. I feel really stupid now, and apologize for the strangeness. --Rob (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK thx no prob. I do dumber stuff 20 x a day!! RetroS1mone talk 23:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Moldova

I noticed your numerous and very good contributions to articles related to Moldova. If you are interested, you can join the wikiproject. Unfortunately, still there are very-very few people interested to develop it, and we simply can not run it with efficiency with only 3-4 active users. Dc76\^talk 08:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are (at least) at 4 reverts at Chronic fatigue syndrome in the last 24 hours: [13][14][15][16]. In the same period, you have also reverted some of thesame people and subjects at [17][18][19][20]. Further reverts at Chronic fatigue syndrome may get you blocked. IF there is edit-warring going on, don't keep on reverting, but ask for page protection for a while until things have been discussed. Fram (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning Fram. I will stay on the talk page, it is frustrating bc there is a tag team that deletes MEDRS. RetroS1mone talk 13:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations

At the risk of furthering the perception, please do not make unfounded accusations of me "stalking" you.[21] Because I have previously edited your talk page, it is automatically on my watchlist, as specified in my preferences. That is the only reason I was aware of Fram's 3RR warning to you and your accusations of a "tag team", which I felt the need to respond to. --Rob (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not right again, from edit summary you could not of know Fram was warning me in specific and you could not of know i said tag team. You did not have to respond and you did not have to say people were deleting medrs by mistake, it is very deliberate, some people try to stop major opinions getting hearing on these articles.

Pls do not provoke and edit my talk page any more except you have article relating reason. RetroS1mone talk 03:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. I read the diffs of ALL pages on my watchlist, therefore I read the warning and responded to it. Ward and Tekaphor are also currently on my watchlist, and other users have been in the past until such time as I did a cleanup and removed them. Having clarified your concern, I will not respond further on your page (per your request) unless further clarification of the issue is required. --Rob (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm wrong about the diffs, i did not know you read all diffs. RetroS1mone talk 03:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Retro, I really think you need to rethink the way you are editing the CFS and fibromyalgia articles. If you keep going the way you are going, it is likely that you'll be blocked. I hope that doesn't happen because I think you have valuable contributions to make. You just need to work more with other editors, take onboard critical comments, and not try to push info into articles that is a WP:Weight or WP:NPOV violation. I think I have a very similar view to you about CFS and fibromyalgia - the difference is that I try to stick to wikipedia guidelines by editing the articles to reflect the current state of scientific consensus and published research, as per MEDRS, NPOV and Weight, and I would advise you to do the same. Also, don't keep reverting just because you think you're right - even if you ARE right, you'll still get blocked! And bear in mind that the current scientific consensus may be wrong or inconclusive about certain things - CFS being a good example. But that doesn't mean you can rewrite the wikipedia article to reflect the "truth" - that is OR. Sometimes scientists just haven't agreed on the cause of an illness, and you just have to accept that. If you do want to educate people about the truth of CFS or fibromyalgia, you should write your own scientific papers and/or publish your own blog or something (I have done this myself). I'm trying to be helpful here, so please don't get upset or angry at this. Feel free to email me if you want to talk more. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Sciencewatcher, i do not believe in truth about CFS or FM, i believe a significant POV in the MEDRS is left out from these articles and when you try and put in MEDRS with it, i get talk page vandalized and people following me around Wiki and deleting everything i do. I do not care about exposing "truth" bc i have no idea what truth is, may be FM and CFS is caused by enterovirus, i do not know, i only care, the Wiki has the different view points also the ones which are verify but people want to delete. RetroS1mone talk 04:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this isn't about POV and MEDRS. See my comment at the CFS talk page. I actually completely agree with you that these overlapping syndromes are most likely all the same thing. However the term MUPS doesn't actually appear anywhere in any major CFS review, so you can't go around plastering the term throughout the articles. I just think you need to step back and rethink the way you edit. You also need to take onboard comments from people who disagree with you. Yes, sometimes they are just POV pushing idiots, but many times there is a genuine issue with your edits and you really need to take that onboard. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thx very much Sciencewatcher, I take your comments onboard.

You say "the term MUPS doesn't actually appear anywhere in any major CFS review" it makes me think, may be you really need to take some MEDRS onboard :-)

Here is Deary the title is "The cognitive behavioural model of medically unexplained symptoms: a theoretical and empirical review." and the first sentence in abstract is "The article is a narrative review of the theoretical standing and empirical evidence for the cognitive behavioural model of medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) in general and for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in particular."

Here is more CFS reviews with medically unexplained terms in abstract,

PMID: 19122123 "Customizing treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia: the role of perpetuating factors." "Syndromes characterized by chronic, medically unexplained fatigue, effort- and stress-intolerance, and widespread pain are highly prevalent in medicine. RESULTS: In chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and fibromyalgia (FM), various perpetuating factors may impair patients' quality of life and functioning and impede recovery."

PMID: 18267050 "A precarious balance: using a self-regulation model to conceptualize and treat chronic fatigue syndrome." "The self-regulation model is a potentially powerful explanatory framework for the consideration and treatment of CFS and medically unexplained symptoms in general."

PMID: 15266475 Here is a Cochrane review about GET for CFS, it says CFS is medically unexplained, first sentence of abstract.

PMID: 12421101 "Chronic fatigue syndrome: probable pathogenesis and possible treatments." First sentence from abstract, "Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) belongs in the medically unexplained illnesses."

PMID: 12194905 "A status report on chronic fatigue syndrome." in abstract is "(CFS), a medically unexplained condition"

PMID: 9218987 "Chronic fatigue syndrome. A practical guide to assessment and management." "We regard chronic fatigue syndrome as important not only because it represents potentially treatable disability and suffering but also because it provides an example for the positive management of medically unexplained illness in general."

PMID: 8856816 "Chronic fatigue syndrome." "Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a medically unexplained illness"

That is just CFS reviews w/ medically unexplained in abstract, i also put some good MEDRS on FM talk. RetroS1mone talk 22:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm neither an expert nor a researcher, so all this is just my opinion based on what I've read on the subject. I was talking about the major reviews, i.e. BMJ clinical evidence, Chambers JRSM, Prins Lancet, CBT Malouff, Cochrane CFS. Sorry don't have PMIDs offhand, but I searched in full-text of them all and didn't find "MUPS" in any. I didn't search for "medically unexplained". All I am saying is that I'm not sure there is enough weight to put MUPS everywhere in the article. Clearly it isn't very commonly used for CFS if the major reviews don't mention it. A lot of your reviews above only have a few citations. That doesn't mean they can't be included, but it does have a bearing in how much coverage they get. Anyway, I think you should get opinions from others before you add this. If you get support, then I'm happy with that. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not only these MEDRS and i did not even put in the rest that have it in text, and i did not put in the text books that have it. RetroS1mone talk 23:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But it's not the number of references that matters, it is the importance of them. As you know you can't just put in anything that meets MEDRS. You also have to consider WEIGHT and the other policies/guidelines (and the number of references doesn't really have anything to do with weight). And I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong here - I'll freely admit I haven't read through the refs you have provided. I'm just giving advice based on what I know about these illnesses, and it is worth what you paid me for it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Living With Fibromyalgia

I choose to remove the warning as well. That we are both in discussions is enough to prevent any 3RR violation. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Care to help me do an archive search on each of these to seek additional coverage that could meet WP:GNG? 4 eyes are better than 2, and not everything is archived in google. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK! Its almost midnight so i can help out tomorrow? thx, RetroS1mone talk 06:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you are on the west coast as well. Here's a determination that I wish you to consider... though there is (not yet) a Wikipedia article on the National Fibromyalgia Association, it would be easy to show that the NFA has notability through a boatload of coverage in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG [22]. Heck... I may just write that one myself. My point here is that if they can be considered notable and reliable enough to be quoted in dozens upon dozens of reliable sources themselves, then perhaps the jump to using something from their own website is not too far a leap of good faith [23], as they would be in the best position to evaluate the film. Sleep on it. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I invite you to assist with the expansion and sourcing of this article in the hopes that it might go live in a day or two: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Could you, please, explain this in more detail. You obviously mean something which I miss the point of. For example, Igor Smirnov Ukrainian? In what sense, political, ethnic, citizenship? The same goes for the other 3 categories. I fail to understand what you mean. Could you, please, explain. Dc76\^talk 12:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"National leader" carries the meaning of head of one of the 193 world nations. Transnistria is a breakaway entity, but even Transnistria does not claim to be a nation. I replaced with Category:20th-century rulers and Category:21st-century rulers. About Category:Ukrainian politicians, normally it includes politicians of Ukraine the country. Otherwise, you know, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be an Austrian politician :):) I believe Smirnov should be removed from this category as well. He does have Russian citizenship, so to some extent one can say he is a "Russian politician" (although this, too, is a bit stretched), but he does not have a Ukrainian citizenship. Also, I sincerely doubt he is a believer, so whoever added that category (Orthodox Christians) should, I would humbly ask, come with a reference. My impression is that he is non-religious. As long as we are not sure, I suggest not to include such categories where he might be listed on a par with a saint. Also, I would like to mention one detail: he is in Category:Presidents of Transnistria, and if that category is subcategory of another category, he does not have to be both in the subcat and in the cat. In fact it is recommended. Therefore for example he is not in Category:Politics of Transnistria, b/c Category:Presidents of Transnistria is already subcat there. Dc76\^talk 10:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Amendments to Jamie Doran Page

Dear RetroS1mone, Your amendments to the Jamie Doran page deleted numerous facts that were substantiated by references from reputable sources, including major news publications. Many of your justifications for these deletions appear to be inadequate. However, I would like to thank you for highlighting a small number of legitimate issues relating to the information I posted. I believe these have now been resolved. 1: Your personal opinions about the film festivals at which Doran won awards are hardly valid reasons to delete references to the original, third-party sources which corroborate the fact that he is a named winner. 2: With regards to the information and references you deleted on the Afghan Massacre film: The Le Monde Diplomatique article and one of the The Guardian articles mention Doran by name and cite his film. You deleted numerous references about the event covered in Doran’s film. The sentence to which these references were attached did not claim that they mentioned Doran, merely that they were related to the Afghan Massacre story. This information is certainly valid as it relates to Doran’s work. Specific references to Doran in every one of the cited articles would therefore not be necessary for their inclusion on this page. Further information relating to this story is also indisputably relevant. 3: You removed all information about the film The Need for Speed, including a reference from the Goethe Institute which specifically mentions Doran and this film. This is unquestionably a reputable third-party source. Please also note that the reference to the BBC article was prefaced with the statement, “The BBC also reported on this story in a 2003 article.” I consider this to be relevant information - relating, as it does, to Doran’s film, as well as giving Wikipedia users the opportunity to access further information about a story he worked on. 4: Your deletion of the entire section on the film Sexpionage is a clear infraction of Wikipedia policy. Proof of Doran’s involvement in this film can be found on the cited New York Times website page. However, thank you for highlighting your issue with the prose. This has now been amended. 5: For your information “popular science writing” is a genre. The adjective is used to differentiate between academic science books and books for non-academic consumers. 6: Your deletion of the entire section on the film Jimmy Johnstone: Lord of the Wing also contravenes Wikipedia rules. The first three references mention the film by name (I suggest you use your browser’s search function). In the fourth, there is an image of the DVD box - clicking on this box brings up a larger image on which the following sentence can clearly be seen: “Directed by Jamie Doran.” All are third party sources. I look forward to making further contributions to this page to transform it into a truly informative and useful resource for all Wikipedia users. Regards, Biggerpicture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggerpicture (talk • contribs) 11:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear RetroS1mone, I see you have once again amended this page, deleting a large number of third party references, without addressing any of the concerns I highlighted in my above message. Shall we discuss this page instead of acting unilaterally? I would be happy to work with you to produce an accurate, impartial and informative page. I would also be happy to have both of our amendments adjudicated on by an administrator. Sincerely, Biggerpicture Biggerpicture (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear RetroS1mone, apologies for my above message, I hadn't seen your comments on the Talk:Jamie Doran page. I believe that some of your concerns about the page have been addressed by the amendments I have made - please see the above comments. There are others that may still need some work, however. Any contributions you might like to give would be much appreciated. I will address further correspondence to you on the Talk:Jamie Doran page, and, for clarity, I will also paste my initial message from this thread there. Best wishes, Biggerpicture Biggerpicture (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear RetroS1mone, You appear to have completely disregarded my attempts to enter into a dialogue with you. I have given lengthy justifications for my edits on a number of occasions, and I have made attempts to accommodate your wishes in these edits. I have also attempted to reach a compromise with you. You have, however, continued to make sweeping and deleterious edits which have been in violation of numerous Wikipedia guidelines. I believe that this should now be a matter for Wikipedia administrators. I will shortly be posting a request for administration to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. Sincerely, Biggerpicture Biggerpicture (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I explained reasons for my edits and explained policies WP:NOR and WP:SYN were the reasons. BLP noticeboard is not the right place for a complaint except when you think i am slandering the subject, i am not doing that. RetroS1mone talk 23:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained symptoms listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unexplained symptoms. Since you had some involvement with the Unexplained symptoms redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Ward20 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello RetroS1mone. As I stated when I passed the RfC regarding your editing behaviour as valid, I've been keeping an eye on your editing, and to be honest, I'm worried - take a look at these two diffs; [24] & [25]. In the first of these, you've reverted an edit which added a valid source to an article by stating that is is original research - quite how you worked this out I have no idea, as it is the adding of references to articles which prove that OR is not happening, so long as they do indeed support the text they are attached to. In the second, you've made several accusations in the edit summary towards the editor who made the perfectly valid changes which you then reverted.

The whole point of the community here is that we form consensus and behave in a civil, collegiate manner. Indeed, as you will see in the blocking policy, an editor can be blocked for disrupting the community spirit, as it interferes with the harmonious editing process. AS a result, I'd be grateful if you could:

• Stop accusing editors of various behaviours in your edit summaries; leave them a message on their talk page or the article talk page is you wish to open a discussion.
• Stop reverting edits which add valid content & sources to articles; if you have a problem with them, find a source and write a paragraph in the article which provides the alternative viewpoint.
• Remember that we're all working towards the same goal here, that of making a decent encyclopaedia; please assume good faith while editing, and try not to be so antagonistic.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. Colds7ream (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)