Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:33, 14 February 2010

Shocking

I'm honestly flabbergasted that the sole flounder would show up to support obvious psuedoscience. Hipocrite (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He's not as bad as Rupert Sheldrake, in my opinion, but he is clearly fringe (and has worse PR than Sheldrake). That article is a mess, and Jimbo hasn't helped. Verbal chat 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but I've got to knuckle under on this one. Obviously, our COI policy has limited meaning if editors must come to a consensus with the subject of the article and one or more of his ardent supporters before editing. But just as obviously, I'm not Jimbo Wales; if he's OK with de Grey and Ben Best gatekeeping this and the woolly flock of related articles (and de facto encouraging them to do so), then I must be, too. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The sole flounder might have the magic founder bit, but that dosen't mean his right. On the contrary, I'd argue. Hipocrite (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Chin up, all. He probably just received a message or two and did what he thought best in light of the BLP imbroglios that keep threatening to take down this site. (It's only a matter of time before WMF is named a party in a defamation suit if they don't solve their BLP issue). It's not the first time a foot has been thrust into a mouth in areas like this. We all make mistakes. Best thing to do is move forward and avoid histrionics. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute

K, re your , the study details four tests. We have four options: ignore this fact; state 'four tests' without naming them; "name" them with a few word description drawn from the content; can go into a whole screed of technical detail that will confuse the lay reader, ... The debate on the discussion page should be about which we should adopt and what that content is. The Antibody test was difficult to summarise, so if you have read the earlier part of the section you should have realised that these are Mikowits own summary, not mine.

I incidentally agree with your analysis, to the extent that tests B-D are based directly or indirectly on animal infected MLV antibodies. However the paper does state that "All of these Abs detected the human VP62 XMRV strain grown in human Raji, LNCaP and Sup-T1 cells"; that is they show a response to a broader class of MLV viruses which includes XMRV. So what we strictly have is 68/101 test positive for on test A. (Of the remaining 33 patients) we have 19,10,9 test positive for a gammaretrovirus class which includes XMRV out of 30:12:18 CFS patients and no control positives. Your wording (without the explanation that these tests are positive to XMRV) would imply that these test would only detect MRV and not XMRV. We both know that antibodies can usually show this type of broad class response, but the general reader would not, especially if you conveniently omit to mention the XMRV validation.

Another point is that you summarise the paper as "two patient samples resulted in apparent infection of primary T-cells." . However, the report doesn't include the word apparent, so this is a WP:OR value judgement on your part.

If you want to go into this level of detail on this paper, then perhaps we should also discuss another paper on a follow-up study that was completed, written up and submitted 53 days after this one? I could pick a lot better holes in that :-) -- TerryE (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that we've cross posted on this one. I have decided to raise an issue on Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts re your actions since your post of the 8th. Accusing both me and Mikowits of "slapdash and scientifically inaccurate" content was really the tipping point. -- TerryE (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please find consensus

Please stop edit warring at Whittemore Peterson Institute until a consensus is reached. Maybe opening a WP:RFC would help. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hope to see you back soon! Verbal chat 22:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Kary Mullis

Maybe the guy has said somewhere that 'the human factor is baloney', but he hasn't done so in the source provided to back up the text (sourced to a video with sidebar of text). I watched it twice now, he doesn't mention the A in AGW at all in that video, yes, he says (as much as) 'global warming theory is wrong', but he doesn't mention the human factor in that source. Please revert your revert of me, or if I have missed it again, provide a timestamp. Thanks.86.3.142.2 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell who you are with all of the IP-hopping. Please use your old account or create a new one. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"with all the ip hopping" ??? LMFAO - two IPs are sooooooooooooo difficult to deal with eh? You are now just obfuscating your deceitful editing. The repeated insertion of false information is considered vandalism, don't put that lie back in again. Thanks.163.1.147.64 (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism. It's edit warring and should stop. Please use the talk page. Gerardw (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts discussion with which you may have been involved.

Hello, Keepcalmandcarryon This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ward20 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Good enough

Sometimes you just have to go for good enough WP:GEPOV. Gerardw (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Russell Blaylock. 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. 

Adding references that you requested and correcting my own edit errors does not constitute edit warring. Greensburger (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)