Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:44, 5 June 2006

The doctor is: bored

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

First named edit open source processes at the Medical algorithm article

In common with other users, I like to keep it short. See archives etc.

the admins noticeboard

To-do

Kal.. http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html

User:86.10.231.219

..

I've posted a request for other admins to look into the situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC - trolling

User:Leifern

.. rather a lot of this

One admin opinion

Several others

I agree. The various vaccination pages are in need of serious work to ensure they conform with umpteen Misplaced Pages policies on verifiability, neutrality, having reputable sources, and so on. I'm going to take a look at them over the next few days to see what needs to be done. In the meantime, everybody needs to calm down - getting personal isn't going to help the situation. --ajn (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Will you seek mediation regarding your dispute with User:Leifern? Steve block talk 10:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course. Ridiculous not to. Can you provide it? Midgley 20:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay in responding to this. User:Leifern is still debating whether to seek mediation or not, and until both parties agree no mediation can take place. Steve block talk 07:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The optimistic eye might discern the tiniest of moderation in his behaviour at Kåre Willoch, although there are still actions of the subject which are to have never happened. We shall see. Midgley 07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So much for optimism. Rankism not the article, the talk. Derives from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive99#Article_Kaiser_Permanente.3B_userUser:Pansophia

Just to be clear, I have asked Steve Block to clarify precisely what needs to be mediated, since our disagreement stems entirely from your series of personal attacks on me. A mediation is an attempt at a mutually satisfactory solution; what would be satisfactory to me is your refraining from attacking, threatening, and seeking to intimidate me. That's not something that's negotiable. As for this statement: "there are still actions of the subject which are to have never happened," I don't even know what that means. --Leifern 00:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The true situation is the reverse of that account. Midgley 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Of what? --Leifern 01:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

List of medical journals

I retained your entry:

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (formerly the Medical Sentinel, magazine of the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons)

on List of medical journals because it's listed as peer reviewed. If there are doubts to its legitimacy being listed in the company of medical journals (which should be relatively nonpolitical), I would not be against its removal. Evolauxia 12:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is broadly respectable although more directed to aims than eg the BMJ.

Good articles

Jenner: Now a good article. --Hamedog 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Midgley/Scotch College, Perth

Controversy

I'm at least keeping an eye on this. WikiProject Health controversies

My guess is that the unpleasantness around it arises from the chips on various alternate shoulders, and that the concealed agenda may prove more troublesome than the disclosed one.

Haley

Vaccination stuff

Re:sociology and vaccinations

Regarding this, I think sb at my dept is actually doing a related dissertation, but she probably haven't edited Wiki before :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask her, but what exactly do you need?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in the phenomenom, rather than the people, particualrly in the way that copied information spreads, despite later corrections, across websites. Also in the sociological view of the whole thing. Midgley 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Vaccination success

I don't know whether you spotted the recent WHO press release, I've put the topic up at wikinews: Global measles deaths plunge by 48% over past six years. Great achievement, but clearly more to do, easpecially in Asia where vaccination take-up currently less good. David Ruben 03:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It will be interesting (but not very) to see what the anti-vaccinationists say about that. Midgley 10:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can only find a single living anti-vaccinationist, that is. --Leifern 13:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've found 3 here. It isn't complicated, just English.

Medical controversy attractors

Your comment: Are there any health controversy pages which don't have Ombudsman and Leifern in their edit histories, because if there are no great number, a solution to the problem presents itself. Midgley 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC) humored me. Mathematicians have a concept of attractors, which seems apropos. Do you have experience in clinical trials? A sense of efficient case finding is common in people who have such experience. Steve Kd4ttc 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a bit - we are in an asthma one and ramping up for a hypertension one that I can't yet talk about. I first read James Gleick's book "Chaos" C17 years ago having bought it in Dulles airport and while travelling South backward at 500 mph, and some of the attractors are indeed strange. Leifern has been away for a while, and returned in foul form - really obnoxious to the extent that something should be done. Coincidentally whaleto popped back up at the same time, I guessed he had been having a lie down. Midgley 02:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Monotremes

The Platypus is a cool creature. But does it transfer immunity with its mother's milk?

current business

1. writing an encyclopaedia
2. Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Leifern/Accusations_by_Midgley

Replies here or on user pages

According to which I have read recently, if a request is made, I should make a reply if it is appropriate to do so. The reply to Liefern's recent repeated demand is "no".

The reasons are:-

1. that his request is based on an untrue assumption - or assertion - IE that which he demands do not exist as an organised collection
2. that he has been around for adequately long on WP to know perfectly well how to track any contributions I've made
3. that the demands are more harassment than a genuine request for assistance
4. that there are no likely conditions when I should do work because Leifern tells me to (or even asks, politely), and these certainly are not they

Midgley 23:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oi! Cool it!

Both you and Leifern need to calm down, take some deep breaths, and perhaps both of you should be very circumspect and restrained in your edits to and discussions around vaccination articles.

Leifern seems to be a fairly reasonable person who takes a skeptical view towards some aspects of vaccination. I disagree with much of what he says, but I wouldn't consider him an unreasonable zealot like some other participants in this dispute.

He shouldn't be making legal threats–and I've now told him that they are unacceptable regardless of any disclaimers he wraps them in–but you need to make an effort to be less...abrasive in your interactions with him. Attacking editors you disagree with doesn't resolve disputes; it inflames them.

I won't hesitate to block one or both of you if you guys can't figure out how to work within the bounds of WP:NLT, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. I don't want to see any pleading on my talk page or any explanations of how the other party is at fault. I just want you two to stop going at each other's throats. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the plan I have been applying for some time now. Midgley 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing comments from your talk page is bad form

Irregardless of any greivances you may have with User:Leifern, you should be aware that, per WP:3RR, the removal of comments from your talk page is considered bad form. Regarding your dispute with Leifern, I would suggest you consider Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process and consider avoiding direct contact where possible. Steve block talk 09:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

See 2d back and 2 sections up here. Noted.

You don't know me but...

... I thought you should know that the recently deleted Peter Fletcher has been nominated for Deletion Review. Given your involvement in the deletion nomination you may have opinions to express there. David | Talk 10:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it! Thanks. If it is going to be done, let us actually do it well. Midgley 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC) User_talk:Midgley/Fletcher

AFD / RFD

Hi. You've recently listed Texas Medical Algorithm Project on AFD, but this is a redirect, not an article. If you're proposing that the redirect page is deleted, it should be listed on WP:RFD not WP:AFD. If you're proposing that the linked-to article, Texas Medication Algorithm Project is deleted, it should be that article (not the redirect) listed on WP:AFD. Thanks, Waggers 16:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

RFD it is... and another TLA learned. Midgley 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re : reversion of WPA after closure of AfD

This whole issue's looks complex...perhaps you may want to ask the admin noticeboard for a third opinon? - Mailer Diablo 17:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Texas Medical Algorithm Project

In case you don't monitor Misplaced Pages:Redirects for deletion, I placed a Keep vote on your Texas Medical Algorithm Project listing that you might wish check / counter. Let me know if what I said doesn't make sense. -- JLaTondre 23:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Description of philosophy and definition of the term

Hi Midgley. In you apparently disagree with describing philosophy before defining the term philosophy, per this edit with the comment "if you are going to define it, doing that after ratehr than before you say it is notiriously difficult to deifine will excuse many things." Before that edit, we had discussed the desired focus of the introduction on Talk:Philosophy. The result of that discussion was agreement that the primary focus of the introduction should be the topic of philosophy instead of the word philosophy, mostly to reflect the difference between the goals of Misplaced Pages and of Wiktionary. In order to make the focus be the topic instead of the word, we agreed to move the definition of the term after the description of the topic. You hadn't taken part in that discussion when you made your edit. Please let me know (here, on my talk page, or on Talk:Philosophy) whether you are aware of and disagree with the outcome of that discussion. If so, the talk page would be the ideal place to promote that point of view. If you were just unaware of that discussion, it seems your edit should be reverted. The Rod (☎ Smith) 17:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:204.100.220.2

I don't know if you can block people, but this guy vandalized A Clockwork Orange today. Numerous earlier instances of vandalization.

WP:AIV is the place Midgley 17:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / opposing / vandalising my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now still a normal user / an administrator / indefinitely banned. Your constructive criticism / support / foulmouthed abuse has given me something to think about / helped me immensely / turned me into a nervous wreck. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ask someone else / suffer and die / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

asymmetric dimethylarginine

I see you had a go at the main description. I came to this as it was linked into diabetes - yet hardly current mainstream therapy ! I think the article risks giving an original research opinion (at very least an interesting monocular interpretation of the current research). I have tried to toned down the description of L-arginine as having proven benefit. Other comments I have left on Talk:Asymmetric dimethylarginine. David Ruben 02:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the edit to change L-arginine to conditionally essential. i think that change is a better dexcription of the process involved here, even though the literature seems to be tilted to the use of non-essential. and yes why wouldnt much of this apply to many other mammals? ill let you enter that ground though. regards, Anlace 15:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Britain: Great in AD50?

Copied from User talk:Bastin8

Not so sure about that change to Exeter. Possibly setting it to ]]Roman Britain

I'm not sure that I understand your objection. The article referred to the island, which is Great Britain. According to the classical (that is, Greek) definition, 'Britain' means the British Isles. According to the modern (that is, incorrect) definition, it means the United Kingdom. Thus, it is plainly unsuitable to refer to the island.

'Roman Britain' (besides the clearly unencyclopaedic use of the term 'Britain') would also be inappropriate, since the article refers to a time before the Roman conquest of Gaul, never mind the conquest of Great Britain. Bastin8 15:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It just seemed a description of something more of a whole than existed at the time, but if it is the landmass, well, whatever. Midgley 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticizng Others

What you wrote in my user discussion page violated WP. I trust that you will not do so again in the future. And I expect no "Invisible Anon" vandalism. Thank you.

Incorrect. User:jgwlaw, but take it to RFC if you won't take advice. Midgley 04:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Are you a self-proclaimed guardian of Wikopedia? Your "advice" was insulting and incorrect.

Further, you may not like what I and others have written on Breast Implants, but what we have stated is correct. Both I and the other author have either epidemiology or scientific background. What we have stated is not what it appears you like to call "pseudo science", unless you call anything you disagree with Pseudo-science.

See user page. Signing comments is not regarded as optional. Midgley 07:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I intended to sign. I will sign this. Jgwlaw 12:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC) And you need to know that I will not toleate your following me around with insults. Jgwlaw 12:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

message

Thanks for the message, I won't be upset if you dismantle the page, I just try to improve what I seeGleng 11:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tip

Thanks for the tip on adding questions for citations for future editors. I am not an expert on the topic of autism & vaccines, and wanted someone else to look for a citation on what appeared to have been an overly generalized and stereotyped statement. It appears that the person who deleted my comments also improved the offending statement. I may do some research on this controversy, but it is not high on my list, right now. Jgwlaw 01:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Autism Epidemic/Incidence

You may be interested that I have reconsidered my vote on the AfD. I am as-yet unsure of whether to contribute to either article. I certainly want to see what the outcome of the vote is. You are welcome to make use of my comments on Talk:Autism epidemic. Wholesale unilateral replacement of text, or "nuking" would probably not be the best way to improve relationships amongst editors. Colin Harkness° 18:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Unilaterally, it would never happen. However replacing with a new version may be a good way to resolve an impasses. Whatever. Midgley 18:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Article survived afd. There were a few improvements to it but is is still far from a good article. A previous comment on the autism noticeboard may be relevant to why it is likely to stay bad. Midgley 09:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

:Ombudsman's WP:3RR.

There is no requirement for consistency between admins, or indeed editors, but Steve Block and 10* could disucss this difference. Midgley 08:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to User talk:Ombudsman—while deleting all of your comments from his talk page wasn't the most polite thing he could have done, you haven't exactly distinguished yourself as a paragon of civility and virtue in dealing with him, either.

He's read your remarks, and doesn't want to hear from you further. Please respect his wishes. Frankly, it appears to be at least plausible that the AfD edit he made was an innocent error, and we are bound to assume good faith.

I'd certainly have assumed good faith if the response ahd been "oops, sorry. Which is a response that has been elicited previously. Plausibility requires a mechanism - not for the first time, the mechanism would include rejecting a warning from the software that there was an edit conflict.

Others are clearly intentional: This, , this: , , , ; this, of an afd after it was closed, so as to restore acrimnoy , Midgley 08:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Incidentally, examining that AfD I've half a mind to block you and damn near everyone else who's made more than one paragraph of comments there for an assortment of violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ouch! There is certainly spreading incivility etc around certain topics, but it goes back well before I became involved, and has never been effectively tackled. Midgley 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm posting a note in Talk Polio..., rather than here. B'regards. FrankB 15:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Whaleto (or site whaleto) rfc

repeated links in violation of WP policies Midgley 21:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look at it InvictaHOG 23:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We appear to have reached a resolution of the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whaleto Midgley 20:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

“Medicine” on MCOTW

After a bit of inactivity, Medicine has been selected as the new medicine collaboration of the week. I am taking the unusual step of informing all participants, not just those who voted for it, since I feel that it is important that this highest-level topic for our collaboration be extremely well-written. In addition, it is a core topic for Misplaced Pages 1.0 and serves as the introduction to our other articles. Yet general articles are the ones that are most difficult for individuals to write, which is why I have invited all participants. I hope it isn't an intrusion; I don't make plan to make a habit of sending out these messages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

It's not 'Polio', and not quite a party, but... You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 20:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I just ripped this off my talk cleaning up for a WikiDayOff tomarrow, and realized you weren't an invitee on the above. Apologies. I've gotten some good input, but can use more. Bear in mind to go to the talk section link first for the brief, then the article. The issue is really how to design an article covering the topic. This 'draft' just sort of 'happened', as is explained. (btw- if you don't like history, don't bother! <G>)

Best! FrankB 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for stopping in the ad-hoc peer review on Arsenal of Democracy! Best wishes! FrankB 15:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Whale

I'm a bit confused by this - was this link previously spammed on that page? I found the link through a Google search for information on the subject of the article, rather than anything to do with the editor. I honestly can't see any value in breaking this link, since it's a reference I'm trying to cite (and we're only on the talk page!) and so I've replaced it. Shimgray | talk | 16:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Donkey Punch AfD

First off; your AfD comment was removed because it incorrectly linked to the original AfD discussion from early 2005 which is now closed.

Before you redo the AfD proposal, you may wish to consider that in addition to the original 2005

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch,

there was a second nomination in February 2006

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (second nomination)

and a third nomination this month (April 2006)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Donkey punch (third nomination).

Fourohfour 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably too much trouble and too nasty. SHould have been sent to jokes etc, except I suppose nobody htougth it was funny Midgley 21:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not being funny hasn't stopped a lot of the rubbish in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense though :-/ BTW, I definitely wasn't recommending the AfD, quite the opposite. But seeing as how your attempt wasn't a cynical, disruptive point-making, soapboxing bad-faith effort like the third AfD proposal, I didn't want to ram this viewpoint down your throat... :-) Fourohfour 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

BI

Thank you for the common sense edits. English, you want English? Was ist los, sprichst du kein Deutsch? Ok it is late.  ;-) Point taken. That was a stupid sentence. Only I do have a question about one change you made. Your phrase 'tending to wall off' isn't exactly what I was trying to say. Don't you think the body's immune system actually does try to wall off the foreign object? I agree that 'in an attempt to' is rather awkward. Can you help me think of a better way to describe this, without a detailed explanation of the immune system? I don't think 'tending' provides quite the correct meaning, do you? Thank you!! molly bloom 05:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I just caught your 'it evolved that way'. ROFL Of course it did. I daresay that you might get an argument from some fundamentalist religous people on that one. There are folks who insist the earth is 6,000 years old, too. I don't think I would want to be the one editing that Wiki article. molly bloom 05:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration on Biological psychiatry

Midgley, first of all, I'm sorry about any work you did on the Biological psychiatry article that was discarded with the re-writes. If you'd like to put any of that back in, feel free. Thanks for all your work on it. However we have a bigger problem with Cesar Tort and Ombudsman constantly pushing the POV tag on that article.

I asked Cesar Tort and Ombudsman for mediation or arbitration. They didn't respond so regretfully we must proceed. Without mediation, we go straight to arbitration. If you're willing to support this, please read the below. I'll file the request later today, unless you suggest otherwise. Joema 19:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Arbitration policy
• Arbitration template
• Arbitration evidence
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• User:Snowspinner/Arbcom - Recommended reading: A guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.

War stuff at Anti-vaccinationist

Thanks for the info, I must have misconstrued the original version when I was copyediting... I haven't added anything new, just changed a few words so it doesn't imply why the war might have caused any epidemic. Obviously add more at will. Sparkleyone 06:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mumps

(Re: your comments in this edit). The "100k" case number seems high to me as well. The CDC's MMWR report (PMID 16617290) cites ~56,000 in '04-05, which leaves me at a loss to find the other 40,000+. Heathhunnicutt cites this cite for the 100,000 figure - which just boldly states it without citing. -- MarcoTolo 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest holding such discussions on the page's discussion page? There's no need for secrecy when it comes to finding references, is there? Heathhunnicutt 13:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have compiled the whole thread on User_talk:Heathhunnicutt, and the bit about the epidemic on the article Talk:Mumps. Heathhunnicutt 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about but it needed some heading

what is this extra-pyramidal effect?

can't find an article on it

u claimed what i thought to be tardive dyskinesia to be this e-p eff Chris fcking2000@yahoo.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.28.65 (talk • contribs)

THe pyramidal tracts carry motor signals into the spinal cord and thence to the muscles. (Roughly). They are fairly plain wiring. There are various systems that work on _position_ rather than power, and allow you to eg specify the position your hand should be in, that being different to where it currently is, movement occurs until it is there. (Very roughly). SO things affecting movement that are not due to a problem with the pyramidal tracts are extra-pyramidal effects and are common with anti=psychotic drugs of the Chlorpromazine --> Olanzapine sort of axes. (Very very roughly). Parkinson's disease, whcih is related to Dopaminergic nerves, produces effects that are not completely unlike some of these. Anti=psychotic drugs as above have efects on dompaminergic neurones. I may have to write an artile on this now, if there really isn't one, here or more likely on http://ganfyd./org but I'd need to do some reading _first_. Tardive duskinesia is a late (late = tardy - tardive) and unexpected effect, extra-pyramidal effects are prompt and expected and reversible. Midgley 21:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

That's okay. Anti-vaccinationists seems like a really interesting topic and I'd really like to get the article to a better standard, but its so difficult to find comprehensive, unbiased information. Anyway, I suppose its me who should be thanking you - you obviously put lots of time and effort into the article (and many others), it's very much appreciated :-). Bodil 18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re : please revisit an MfD you closed - I have relisted it

Noted. BTW I don't close MfDs these days already. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• lol, oh no no no I didn't thought it was criticism, just that I'm no longer as active as I used to for the past few months in this aspect. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 11:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

86 RfC

You (or someone) should add the RfC to the list at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, since most people won't be able to find it otherwise. I'd do it but I don't know what the accompanying description should be. –Tifego _{08:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}

Seance

I have been searching for information on this (Steth actually did remove it), and it is quoted as being from a book by DD Palmer, but I don't have the book.... Please email me and I'll send you what I have. It's all very interesting. The spiritualist, occultist, Freemason, roots of chiropractic. -- Fyslee 20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Smallpox Hill

Hi - good to know someone's out there! It's at ST 775984. I'd be delighted to hear more about it - I only heard the name in the mid-sixties, when I spent some time in that area. - Ballista 09:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - just moved this from your user page where, with great shame, I have to admit I put it in error, y'day! Apologies - Ballista 04:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Was the reply from you? - yes, I'd been told as a teenager, by a local, that it was a smallpox hospital but had never verified that fact. For all I knew, it was just a great local legend, but why shouldn't it be true? - Ballista 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I also replied to User:Downhamhill

List of Medical Controversies

Also nice to see that someone is highlighting these. You can add 'Homeopathy', 'Chiropractic', 'Applied Kinesiology' and possibly a few more besides! - Ballista 10:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've inserted this message in Category talk:Alternative medicine - "Coming in late to this debate, I would suggest that the tag 'Pseudoscience' is inherently WP non-PC. It is surely POV by its very nature. There are differences of opinion on what represents 'science' and therefore what represents 'pseudoscience'. In my experience, both tags could apply to some aspects of both 'alternative' and 'mainstream' medicine. Furthermore, there are practices that have developed through observation, in both categories of medicine, which have not been 'scientifically proven', according to modern criteria, and are therefore not EBM (evidence-based medicine). That does not make them invalid. I have held back from editing articles on various aspects of alternative medicine, as they seem so fraught with sabotage, ideology, bigotry and all sorts of other un-WP stuff (sometimes coming from both 'sides'). I believe that WP is the loser in all this. - Ballista 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)"

Hi - just moved this lot from your user page where, with great shame, I have to admit I put it in error, y'day! Apologies - Ballista 04:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Science is science and many other things are perfectly reasonable other things. Pseudoscience I take to be wrapping non-science in the trappings of science in order to confuse. Orgonite, ] and - given the assertion of subluxations - chiropractic's fundemanetal theoretical basis are pseudoscience. Science is powerful and pseudoscience is an attempt to steal that power for fraudulent purposes. Midgley 08:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence

Thanks for the kind words about the anecdotal evidence rewrite! Jokestress 01:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

!Grin! Midgley 07:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Midgley, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens 04:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

whale.to RfC

?where does this go from here?Gleng 11:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Carefully through WP procedure I think. The first thing is that John having responded rather shortly and essentially denying the legitimacy of the RFC, should be encouraged/given another opportunity to either respond or reject it. If he would accept a mentor or if anyne felt like offering him advice (Arcadian did several times I know) then this would be a reasonable part of demonstrating he has had every cnhance to take on board the criticism of Whale and of his linking to it. If he indicates that he does not accept the WP procedure - the RFC and so on - then it is a request to ArbCom to consider it next.

Meanwhile, my feeling is that an admin looking at a link by John to Whale.to , and arguably at a link by anyone who can be shown to have been made aware of th RFC, to Whale.to , would not be acting unreasonably in blocking that user. But of course that is just my view.

As a secondary activity, I note there is an RFC on WP:RS one idea in which is to list certain sources that are reputable, and by implication at least, certain sources that are not reputable. It may be reasonable to write an essay which would have the same standing as eg WP:CB or WP:SNOW saying in essence WP does not link to Whale.to or its clones as a source becuase it has been determined by RFC that it is not reputable as a source. Midgley 12:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

reaching outDrugs for lipids

archive and discussion by all means

Clarify edit summary

User_talk:Midgley/fish

Orwell's essay Politics and the English language] is quite good

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Midgley 09:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Imitation

Let me think about it - I think there are some significant differences between RFCs and RFArs that should be addressed, but I haven't given any thought at all to how to approach them before today. Phil Sandifer 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

MMR Vaccine

reply and original moved

Attenuated as distinct from 1) wild or 2) dead or 3) sub-unit. Both subtypes of the strain Jerryl-Lynn wil be attenuated. We don't have compulsory vaccination of children and I'm not part of a debate about it. Vaccination against the potentially lethal childhood diseases seems to me a good idea, a view shared by the health services and governments of every country in the world. I think I was the first editor to introduce the actual contents of MMR, that it is a mixture of three vaccines, prior to that readers were being presented with it as a separate thing from any of its components, something which has happened with an article on MMRV recently again. Midgley 16:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your replies strike me as surprisingly rude. In particular, your numbered series of assertions sounds erudite but is truly misleading. You then accuse me of being " a source which may be unreliable in evaluating ... well, almost anything."

Sorry,., I was in a bit of a rush. The remark about a source definitely doesn't apply to you, I wondered if you had picked something up from a propagandist - IE a source unreliable about things. Midgley 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your assertions:

(1) We all know this, and it is inherent in my original complaint about the traditional term "attenuated."

(2) I think you are mistaken. There are published reports of differences in proteomics between JL1 and JL2. Perhaps you are unaware of this: Changes in Mumps Virus Gene Sequence Associated with Variability in Neurovirulent Phenotype and the other such publications.

It is a bit specialist for me - as a jobbing doctor with an interest in it - I think it is actually a bit specialist for most virologists or immunologists. That may suggest it is not really encyclopaedia material ... DOes it have a different immunogenicity, virulence, etc? THose are potentially relevant for a vaccine.Midgley 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As a computer scientist with professional experience in bioinformatics, it is the kind of article I've enjoyed reading for the last 9 years. Yes the strains do have different virulence w.r.t. tissue type (histotropism). See that article's summary.Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(3) Your statement seems disingenuous. The Mumps genome is a single, linear, RNA-, 16kbase sequence with 7 genes which are known to encode 8 proteins. Comparing this to the human genome is not merely extreme, but seems deliberately misleading.

Well, that is clever of it. What is the result of the two differences in sequence observed? I didn't look it up again - on my way out to dinner - but in principle two things obtain: 1)theoretically I knew that, and 2)It is smaller than the human genome and therefore any given codon is much les likely to be insignificant, however the principle is a general one that applies to viruses. Midgley 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The principle in general does not apply to viral genomes. There is much more junk genomic material in human DNA than (proportionally speaking) in any virus. In the case of Mumps, the case actually at hand I might remind you, the amount of non-coding, non-regulatory (promoter regions, etc.) material very minimal even for a virus. Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Put another way:

Genome	Base Pairs
Human	3 000 000 000 000
Mumps	15 300

(4-5) You are really repeating yourself on Freshman Biology, and also mistaken in the sense that there have been observed proteome differences between JL1 and JL2.

Background.

Arguably.

(6) We agree on this point. This is why I asked you to elaborate on "attenuated." And by that I did not mean, "Teach us English." I mean, "by what mechanism have the viruses been attenuated?" What is the actual meaning, in this specific case, of "attenuated." We all know that it represents the distinctions you cited: cultivated as opposed to wild, weaker than the wild strain in the following measured ways, etc.

Probably best to ask Merck. If I have to, when I come back from holliday, I could evaluate the several references to this Google search: Again, this may be a little post-graduate, if not PhD level for an encyclopaedia. Midgley 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit silly to hide behind the veil of "too advanced information." It's a fact that there are more strains identified in the vaccine than generally spoken of. This same situation was identified in polio vaccines and you may also want to do a search on that literature concerning neurovirulence in polio vaccine. What is important is that the information be correct and not misleading, IMO. Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, Midgley, I agree everyone should get vaccinated. I also think it would be nice if we had less-controversial vaccines to choose from. In the U.S. presently, we are about to be hit with a major Mumps outbreak. Lots of people will be getting Mumps booster shots. Considering all the controversy surrounding MMR, there is good reason to make the article more comprehensive and fact-based. Merely using the traditional word "attenuated" is deeply unsatisfying; nobody is learning anything from that. I notice the reference I cited uses the term "neuroattenuated." May I suggest that we adopt that term?

I finished giving my patients their MMR boosters to avoid that last year, and treated or observed a couple of people who chose not to get them or didn't get them for Mumps. My advice, which you can by all means repeat, is that everyone should ensure they have an adequate level of immunity to Mumps, ahead of the spread of disease, by the best means available to them. If they live in or visit Exeter I shall be happy to assist them in this. Midgley 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Neuroattenuated" is not a term I am familiar with. I personally would avoid using it on that basis alone, and also on the groujnds that it seems a term likely to confuse, me if not others. Midgley 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, "neuroattenuated" means that the virus' virulence in human nerve cells (neurovirulence) has been reduced, as compared to the wild strain from which it was derived. Dr. Hilleman passaged the virus through growth media (Chicken Eggs and Human + Bovine Serum Albumin) that selected for strains that were less well adapted to human nerve tissue. Somehow, his strains were also useful for a live vaccine. In the study I cited, the researchers used Vero cells (I love linking to that article!) and other growth media to derive (from the "attenuated" strains) new generations that were increased in neurovirulence. They then sequenced the mutations which led to this adaptation and compared these mutations to the differences between JL1 and JL2. However, they could not reach a definitive conclusion regarding the comparative neurovirulence of JL1 vs. JL2 because of confounding factors. Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an appropriate replacement term might be "attenuated neurovirulence". Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I seemed to steal some of your credit. I think it's wonderful that you added the ingredients to the intro on MMR Vaccine! But let's put more citable science in that article in preparation for making it utterly reasonable. Heathhunnicutt 18:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, but I'd suggest that attenuation of viruses is a _general_ topic rather than one to replicate into articles on specific vaccines. Midgley 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree very much -- in each case, there will be specific information about the way in which each virus has been attenuated. That specific information should not be lost.Heathhunnicutt 01:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you also wrote this in your reply:

I see that reference one and reference three in MMR give the information that the viruses are attenuated, the latter giving it in part as part of the actual reference text. Would you care to replace the fact tag with a further footnote link to one or both of those if you feel the latter is needed, please? I'm a little unclear what caused you to think there was a problem, and also to express it in terms of a lack of balance or POV of mine, would you care to enlarge on that?

Yes, I would love to enlarge on that. I like your POV, but I do not like the article's POV. I got in touch with you via a fact tag because I wanted to obtain a reference from you -- you are a physician interested in the article. The problem with the article is not extremism of your POV, but rather the anti-vaccine content is greatly out of balance. As I see it, the initial steps of rectifying this are to improve the on-topic portions of the article. Heathhunnicutt 19:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)

You are invited to vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). All this is is ramblings/blog/rants about Bush. Not encyclopedic, should've been deleted long ago. Happy editing! Morton devonshire 20:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please note that the VfD you just voted is currently closed. The present discussion is located at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)--RWR8189 20:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

HDN

You have confessed to knowning little about HND of the newborn and to not reading articles before making comments and so I do not understand the reasons for your editing on HDN. Snowman 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is probably a tactful way of putting that comment, along with the convenience for those of us who have been away for a week of pointing to the actual edit or article... but there is a considerable and significant difference between a practicing doctor making it clear he is not an expert on a specific condition (unlike, say, a professor or consultant in Haematology) and "confessing to knowing little". It may not be so clearly apparent to those who are not any of those things. I don't treat it, might diagnoses it, do actively engage in preventing it, and regard it as one of those many medical conditions I should have a more than encyclopaedic but less than specialist knowledge of and a clear and useful mental model of how it wors, WHich applies to all UK general practitioners. As to the reasons for editing - that'd be to make them more encyclopaedic and better. HDN is a condition arising from a group of similar causes, and writing a complete article on each cause as though it is a separate and unique thing in itself is sub-optimal as a way of informing the reader, and also in maintaining accuracy and the articles. Even though WP is not a hierarchcial collection of information. My user page notes what I do - Snowman's doesn't - doctors are invited to make themselves known, as I suppose are everyone else. Copied to Snowman's talk page, on my watchlist, furhter replies there please. . Midgley 16:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaguely related to "knowing little" and anyway not worth a separate title here: thanks for your most interesting comment on my own talk page with its welcome news; I've replied more fully there. -- Hoary 01:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

New RfC

You really need to find a co-certifier for your RfC, someone who had also sought to resolve the specific dispute. My participation has been too tangential to fulfill that role, I believe. -Will Beback 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If nobody involved is inclined to do so then the RFC should laps. I suspect that one will appear. Midgley 10:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Need comments on Biopsych arbitration case

Midgley, please read this section closely and make any comments you think appropriate under the "comment by parties" headings: RFA Cesar Tort, Ombudsman proposed findings of fact. Joema 17:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks

It is usually best not to remove personal attacks against yourself, especially when they're made on someone else's talk page. I think that Pansophia is being incivil, but I don't think you have the right to remove our names from the message he left on his page. I think it only serves to escalate the situation. JoshuaZ is trying to sort the situation out, and any future arbitration against Pansophia will deal with his personal remarks. It also seems a little hypocritical considering that you just referred to him as "unbalanced" and "ill" on Talk:Kaiser Permanente. Rhobite 14:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a sustained pattern, it should not be encouraged. There is a non-policy but reasonable body of opinion and essay suggesting that course of action. And the appearance of illness, as opposed to rational activity in pursuit of an achievable goal, or even a continuing demonstration of feeling, is actually there. It isn't possible to diagnose on the basis of reading what is written on the 'Net, but that content is suggestive. Whatever one does this is a mess, and will continue to be so - it is easy for unreasonable behaviour to cause trouble and less easy for reasonable behaviour to solve it. Midgley 15:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that personal attacks are uncivil and should not be tolerated. That includes your unwarranted attack on me, Midgley, where you falsely accused me of beng Gfwesq. We are both lawyers, so we must be the same person? That is your logic? How dare you?MollyBloom 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Psuedoscience Barnstar

Kudos on the Pseudoscience Barnstar. I love the subtle irony of the image; it's very clever. Because, of course, we have the pseudoscientists of the past to thank for the spherical earth theory. I'm with you on that. Here's to thinking outside the box! --Splidje 14:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeryl Lynn

I really appreciate the reworking you gave to the page on Jeryl Lynn and the girl it was named after. Thanks! Heathhunnicutt 19:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mumps Vaccine

It looks to me like your new article on Mumps Vaccine is an attempt to waylay my article on Mumpsvax. I especially think you are a proponent of the combined MMR vacine. I have to question your problem with the article in the first place. Heathhunnicutt 23:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything in your reply sounds reasonable to me. What I think you have left out, and what I don't like, is the seeming obfuscation of Mumpsvax, and that you can recieve it disjoint from the MMR. I know as an Establishment POV Physician, you want people to take the MMR. I agree people shouldn't worry about autism and vaccines. But I think it is important that the people who do worry will find easy information that Mumpsvax is a severable vaccine component of MMR. That way, more people who fear vaccines will get vaccinated. Heathhunnicutt 23:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, please do not make an effort to subvert the Jeryl Lynn page on the Jeryl Lynn strains of mumps virus into a page on Jeryl Lynn Hilleman. Thank you. Heathhunnicutt 23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

With your most recent edit, you have subverted the Jeryl Lynn page. At this rate, I'm going to have a go at repairing it. The introductory topic is now about the person. The article, mind you, is not about the person. That is the kind of editorial behavior that leads me to believe you are pursuing an agenda of obfuscating details about that articles' actual content -- on the topic of vaccine strains. The introductory sentence of the Jeryl Lynn article must state that the topic is a vaccine strain. Heathhunnicutt 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The explanation of why it is called that seems to me a very sensible introduction. I think the story is rather nice, and very encyclopaedic, so I'm not trying to make it obfusc at all. I think you'll find that if you start off the story with stating it is a vaccine strain it begins to look awkward - see the version before I re-ordered and extended that bit. We could try boxing her if you like - use a box as in Edward Jenner perhaps, but there is a risk that someone will unbox it later. I think a bolded headline 4 lines down the page is pretty eye catching as far as vaccines go, and if you wanted to make it abundantly clear that it was a vaccine strain, why not do so in teh title when you initiated the article "Jeryl Lynn strain mumps vaccine" or whatever, plus or minus brackets. Midgley 00:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've stooped to a civility war. It's rather ironic that you would accuse me of incivility. Yesterday, by your own admission, you contacted the PR department of a corporation and invited them to make off-topic edits to an article. (To edit Jeryl Lynn under your redirect Jeryl Lynn Hilleman.) This behavior, while sugar-coated with nice-sound English grammar, is inherently uncivil. I feel you have been disingenuous and scheming in your effort to disband my articles which you dislike due to what is apparently a pro-MMR agenda. Heathhunnicutt 17:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is untrue. Repeating it suprises me, as does the fabrication and embellishment. As previously noted the contact is not to the PR department but to the company through their common entrance, for the attention of Ms Jerryl Lynn Hilleman, this being the only route I know, and for the purpose of notifying her of the existence of the article on the strain of Mumps vaccine named after her. I take this to be a courtesy, and see no justification for this attack. As for any agenda on the MMR, this also is a suggestion I find bizarre and is untrue. And heading for RFC - or mediation...

I think there is some basic misunderstanding of how redirects work and what they are for going on.

Midgley 17:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Also a misunderstanding of irony. Midgley 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:vandal and fraud

I don't quite see the problem. Could you point me to the specific sentence that is causing you trouble? You should be aware that WP:ANI is not for settling content disputes. enochlau (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I see, I'd suggest taking this to WP:AFD. enochlau (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Hi, you made a mediation request here. Could you please fill in all the required information as soon as possible or it may well be removed. We are happy to help mediate discussions but we have to know the full details before doing so. I understand you may be angry or annoyed at the conduct of other users but the best way to resolve such disputes is by providing full and frank information to all parties. Thank you for youy time -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, your mediation request will be considered and should be taken up in the next few days. If there is no mediator response within 5 days then please feel free to get in touch with me or any of the other mediators on the list. Thanks -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) 19:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Reiss Afd

Just for the record concerning your comment here (which I only just noticed), when I originally listed the article, the article said the injury was a hematoma. Someone changed it to "sub-dural haemorrhage" after the fact. The news articles sourced described it as a non-life-threatening minor injury. I just wanted to correct your impression that I was trying to be dismissive of the injuries, I was going by what the article and sources said at the time I came upon the article. --MPerel 22:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Noted. I accept and believe that without reservation. cc to user talk, this'll archive soon. Midgley 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you : ) --MPerel 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The article before deletion linked to this article, which states, "He was diagnosed with a sub-ural hematoma, swelling cuased by bleeding in the brain". I assumed this was a spelling mistake and used "sub-dural", and since I thought "bleeding in the brain" was synonymous with haemorrhage, the phrase became "sub-dural haemorrhage". Though I defer to your medical knowledge. - Xed 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thiomersal

Thanks for pre-empting me in moving thimerosal to thiomersal. =) -Techelf 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

MollyCoddling

User_talk:Midgley/molly01

There are Wikopedia rules against personal attack, and you seem very adept at violating these on a repeated basis. There are also laws against cyberstalking.MollyBloom 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are you on a personal attack?

I just want to know why you are on a personal attack?MollyBloom 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have an entire section on "MIDGLEY CODDLING" on my talkpage? Why are you so venomous? You really have a problem.MollyBloom

Epilepsy

I've added some comments re: your recent edits to Talk:Epilepsy. Regards, Colin Harkness° 20:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)