User talk:Riverpa

Re: Balticon

That kind of data is not encyclopedic and doesn't belong in an article about a given SF con. There are a lot of mundanes out there who would love to see all fandom-related articles deleted; the last thing we need to do is to provide fodder for their arguments by padding articles with trivial detail about what's on the program at a given con (which changes every year anyway. (When was the last con you went to that had a banquet, once a fixture of convention programming?) Concentrate on providing evidence (preferably from the mundane press, or at least sources known to mundanes like Locus) to prove notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article needs more substantial, encyclopedic content. Examples would be information derived from articles in reliable sources explaining its history (putting it into a context as part of the history of SF and fandom, etc.) or stating what role Balticon plays in SF culture in the Mid-Atlantic states. This is a reference work, not a con-goer's directory. Look at Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News, etc. for relevant information. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

David Standish Ball

I understand; uncited claims in biographies should be tagged or removed. Yes, I've heard the jokes about Canon Ball. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Hi,

In this edit you state " While the meaning you espouse is perfectly valid, and we are not trying to negate it..." - may I ask who the "we" is? Do you represent an organization?

Second, have you ever previously had a wikipedia account? The request for comment is an unusual step.

Third, have you read the talk page as I suggested? This discussion has happened before. Also, have you reviewed the relevant content policies I have pointed out, notably WP:OR and WP:NPOV? My edits are not based on not understanding the definition of bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, it's based on how they are discussed in peer-reviewed journals. It is therefore important for you to understand these policies, and be able to demonstrate that the relevant sources are in fact discussing bioidentical hormones in the way you suggest before editing towards this point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV - we represent issues as found in the appropriate literature. The majority of references portray bioidentical hormones as I have; unproven, misrepresented, borderline dishonest and with the same expected benefits and risks of conventional hormone replacement therapy. Also review WP:MEDRS and WP:CANVASS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of notes

Boothby does not have an "e" in it.

Why should we highlight Boothby's work in particular? By using both a quote and using a name, a reader's attention is drawn and leads to the question "Who is Boothby and why should I care"? That's why we link to the various agencies making claims and statements.

If you don't like the wording, pick a wording that you think better represents the sources. Don't just blanket revert the addition of a half-dozen sources that converge on and support these points.

Please read the articles more carefully - most explicitly or implicitly support my points, and I'm finding this out merely through reviewing the Definitions section of the talk page. I'm not picking studies at random, I'm basing my edits on these articles and reviewing them based on your comments to ensure they are accurate. If a study says BHRT involves compounding, and BHRT is unproven, then compounded BHRT is unproven. If a study says BHRT is unproven but doesn't specify if compounding is used or not, then BHRT is unproven. The articles I cite collectively support the points, I don't see the need to cite compounded¹²³⁴ and uncompounded⁴⁵⁶⁷ when all say the same thing - unproven, untested, exagerated claims. You're also removing reliable sources that explicitly support a point for no good reason. And finally:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)