User talk:Jonathan108

Appendicitis

I thought it was an interesting idea, if unspported by current evidece. You've probably noticed that we're still working on this section of the article, trying to find a happy medium between saying nothing and having several paragraphs. --Kerowyn ^Leave a note 17:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, about those sources. I honestly can't remember, but if you poke around in the history of the Appendicitis article around the end of August, it should be in with the revisions. Kerowyn ^Leave a note 03:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the previous language suggested that Burkitt's theory is unknown, which isn't the case. It's a simple statement of fact that the theory is unverified and most health practicioners wouldn't agree with it. Kerowyn ^Leave a note 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has reached a happy medium. We include more detail without more scientific evidence from a peer-reviewed journal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there simply isn't any. You'll notice that there is a third theory involving sanitary conditions. There has been no research to support it either, and it is presented as such. We can't give Burkitt's theory more space without presenting an unbalanced view. Kerowyn ^Leave a note 01:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the language, though I still disagree with you. I thought that the wording was rather ambigous, so I changed it. I would challenge your opinion that most health care practioners are ignorant of this theory. Kerowyn ^Leave a note 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squat toilets

You have edited a number of articles to reflect this view, which you've been trying to get into Wikipedia for some time now. I've removed it from diverticulitis and colorectal cancer because of a complete lack of evidence and because it is generally not recognised at causative in any of these diseases. The only way to mention it would be to mention it in the broader context of a historical overview. Neither article has such an overview.

I can understand why diverticulitis could theoretically be linked to the way in which people defaecate, but colorectal cancer is due to cumulative DNA damage - something I can not logically link to intraluminal pressures or anything even remotely connected. In you cannot give some references to serious papers that have examined the evidence, will you please stop pushing this historical artefact as medically sound? JFW | T@lk 22:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brassieres and Cancer Risk

I saw the new section you added. Given it offers only one source (and a non-medical one at that), this may be a very controversial claim. I would like you to consider reducing the prominence of this paragraph. I think it's OK in one to two sentences, but beyond that it distorts the relative importance and authority of that particular authors claims (and agenda). Quoting the authors of the book:

"While more research is clearly needed to further study this link, we believe it is prudent medicine to recommend women abstain from bra wearing as a precaution. There is no reason for wearing a bra, apart from fashion. The human body was not designed with a flaw that requires modern lingerie for correction. Like the absurd and destructive fashion of foot binding in China, women in the West bind their breasts. Surely, we believed, once women understood how this practice is threatening their health and lives, they will stop wearing bras."

Equating bra wearing to foot binding is somewhat outside of conventional and scientific wisdom. I'd prefer we include offer other supporting evidence of the claim before giving this book such a large portion of the Wikipedia article.

Let me know what you think. Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dressed to Kill (book)

This is now an article on its own, with a link in the Brassiere article. Check it out. Mattnad (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you serious in claiming that mainstream orgs have not refuted the claims that bras cause cancer? The criticisms section is full of references. You may not like it (clearly), but to call it false is a bit off the charts. Mattnad (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

saw your note. I suppose "refute" might be a bit strong. There's also little to refute that my hamster killed JFK but I'd never seriously make that claim. I'll pick a word that's not so hard on overwhelming dismissal of their claims by reputable scientists. Mattnad (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See that you got to it already - wasn't sure that "aggressively" is true. The critiques are short, and pretty dismissive of the book: not hard to challenge from a medical/scientific point of view. I would argue that this Wikipedia article is the most active debate about this topic on record. Mattnad (talk)

Addition of Blue Earth Ceramics link to squat toilet article

Dear Jonathan,
I have just added a link to Blue Earth Ceramics to the Wikipedia article on Squat Toilets. If you might have any questions about it, please feel free to email or phone me regarding this link. Would be happy discuss again with you the most recent changes in availability of squat toilets in the West, if you were interested.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dressed to Kill (book)

An editor has nominated Dressed to Kill (book), an article that you edited, for deletion. The editor does not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and he or she explains why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dressed to Kill (book). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mattnad (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

I just wanted to draw your attention to how an absence material is handled on wikipedia. See the section in dressed to kill about "no supporting research". We didn't invent this. We quoted reliable sources. If you can find independent (meaning not the authors of the book) expert opinions that qualify for WP:RS, then do it. Otherwise MastCell will probably make good on his promise. Mattnad (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of supporting research is not the same as the existence of refuting research. The claim that the hypothesis is false is unjustified. The most they can claim is that it's unproven. In any case, I'm done with that article. I'll just wait for a peer-reviewed study to appear in JAMA or Lancet supporting the hypothesis. I can't waste any more time fighting an unfair battle. --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Mattnad (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article squat toilet, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second the above Ronk01 talk 15:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Body earthing

I didn't place the POV tag. I added the {{uncat}} tag, and while I was doing that AWB renamed the existing tag from "npov" to "pov" — it routinely updates maintenance tags as part of its page cleanup to bypass redirected template names in favour of the actual title instead — but the tag was already present before I came along. I can see from the edit history, however, that it was added on August 19 by an anonymous IP with no prior or subsequent edit history, so your chances of actually being able to get a response from them are pretty limited — but I can't speak either way to whether the tag is warranted or not, because I didn't add it and I'm not familiar enough with the topic to know whether the content is problematic or not. Sorry I can't be more help. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—

More on body earthing. If you don't like the changes I made when attempting to make it less of an advertisement for the Earthing Institute's products (per the tags), please feel free to rewrite them, or engage in some discussion as to what should be changed. Reverting everything wholesale is how edit wars start. However, rejecting my edits because you find the sources unreliable is a red herring since all the sources currently quoted either have a financial interest in positive results (Earthing Institute) or are studies published in less-reputable alternative medicine journals with poor methodology (see WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) - no control groups, small sample size, etc etc). Merely having personal opinions, based on incorrect theories of how electromagnetism works, published in an alternative medicine journal does not make it a reliable source! Really the talk page is the place for having this discussion so I urge you to engage with it to make the article better overall. Thanks. Stonejag (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

squat toilet picture

then i guess it would be the best if you uploaded that picture from your site to commons. i am deleting mine (that black box keep appearing).-- Infestor ^T • _C 22:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jonathan108. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jonathan108. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]