This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WLU (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 23 April 2007 (→Talk pages: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:12, 23 April 2007 by WLU (talk | contribs) (→Talk pages: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)COI
Hi,
I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but wikipedia does have Conflict of Interest guidelines, which might be germane in your editing of BHRT articles. That being said, I think BHRT is a load of crap, and have added your webpage to the external links section of the T.S. Wiley and BHRT. Fortunately, we're still allowed to edit pages we think are a load of crap. Anyway, if anyone gives you grief over the editing of the pages, I offer my services as an intermediary to skirt the guidelines :)
--WLU 13:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. My only interest in this matter—after witnessing the behavior of Wiley and her husband (Nraden), which I won't go into here—is that the full story be told, not just pro-Wiley propaganda. It earns me nothing, and indeed it costs me time and money.
--Debv 18:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem that's why I've got a watch list! To be clear, you are allowed to edit the page, you just aren't really allowed to cite wileywatch.com (or whatever). If you have other sources which are independent of your own website, those are allowable. I'm still in the midst of editing the page by the way. WLU 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes I understand that. But if I'd done the cleanup, it would have been pouring fuel on a fire. Thanks again.--Debv
Talk pages
Please read WP:TALK before modifying talk pages beyond adding your own text. It is considered bad form to remove anything other than blatant vandalism or personal attacks from talk pages, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not. The Times review of the book is a legit source of information and counts as a reliable source. I have re-added the information to the talk page, if you wish to discuss whether the link should be placed on the main page, please do so. WLU 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction -- my mistake. --Debv 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply
I'm confused about why you added the reports of adverse effects from the Wiley Protocol to Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy but deleted the same material from T. S. Wiley. As I argue on Talk:T. S. Wiley, the material presented is not challenged by any party in this controversy, and therefore is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. Please discuss. (User:Debv)
- Hi,
- The T.S. Wiley page should discuss the person, T.S. Wiley - who she is, what she's done, etc. Criticisms of her qualifications are appropriate there, though criticisms of BHRT are not. The protocol exists separate from the person - T.S. Wiley is not the same thing as BHRT. However, criticisms of BHRT is appropriate for the BHRT article, as it directly relates to the page itself. You could probably have a short section (more like a sentence) on the BHRT page discussing how the originator of the protocol is unqualified, but you shoudn't be discussing Wiley at length there.
- Of course, it's always possible that I just forgot, or changed my mind - I think my edits to the pages are several days apart at least, and I don't have a master plan on what to put where, I just go with what makes sense to me at the time. It's a terrible error to assume that Misplaced Pages and it's editors are anything other than a lurching Frankenstein's monster, hastily cobbled together from the jagged assemblages of individual editor's lives and time, held together by whims and edit summaries like electronic neck bolts :)
- WLU 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)