User talk:TheNautilus

also known as User:69.178.41.55--TheNautilus 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC), sometimes 66.58.... and no doubt, 665.8 to some others  ;>[reply]

Your Opinion Please?

Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual people, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_metaphysical_sciences but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)[reply]

Welcome

Good to see your talk page up and running. I think we need gather a band of editors together to protect this article. Issue a credo and revert any bad faith edits collectively.

I propose that any user who does any of the following should have their entire sequence of edits reverted on sight:

• Removes content and replaces it with content of obviously inferior quality, or empty sections
• Reverts to a version of the article with a radically different structure or organization (without talk page consensus).
• Changes Pauling's introductory definition without discussion.
• Reverts the wording of the introduction to a form that has previously failed to achieve consensus
• Poisoning the well

(This list is incomplete; feel free to add to it.)

Drastic times call for drastic measures. If orthomolecular medicine is to survive as a good article, it must be defended.

If this is to work we must recruit defenders. Shall we agree on a credo between us before we expand the circle? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice addition. BTW have a look at physics and physics/wip; they're organising themselves to resist the barbarian hordes. Perhaps we should create a private copy of OM where "we" can work in peace on it until ready for unveiling? --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Welcome as well. I'm sorry to inform you that you've been cited as a part of a mediation case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-09 Orthomolecular medicine and related pages. As a word of the wise to a relative newcomer (yes, I notice you've been active as an anon for 3-6 months), I'd suggest staying on the best of behaviour, and being careful with words and deeds. You will probably want to mostly ignore the mediation unless it affects you directly. linas 14:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience

I think what Michael Price is trying to say is that you are coming to WP at a time when there is a marked increase in pseudoscience and general crank edits. It seems as if every cranky genius who has some wacky idea is now attempting to express themselves on WP. The old-timers (such as I) are finding their energies drained in trying to fight these guys off; not a small number leave WP in frustration as a result. Personally, I am most familiar with mathematics and physics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics is where appeals are commonly made. I presume that similar discussions take place for the medicine and biochem wikiprojects. Please note there is also an explicit project Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience for sheparding articles in that category.

I am mentioning this to you because, based on your (anon) edit history, you seem to be an intelligent, clear-thinking individual. From what I can tell, the claims being made by User:Cri du canard are wholly unfounded and have no merit. I don't want you to get discouraged by finding yourself embroiled in controversy from the very outset. There actually are placid waters in some parts of Wikipedia. linas 14:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some proponents...

Regarding the Orthomolecular article, there is unnecessary usage of weasel words, notably "some proponents". In your edits, including reverts, could you take care to ensure this form of words isn't reintroduced. Thanks. Addhoc 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I thought I was gently agreeing that QW should not be regarded as a V RS, without getting into discussion about its reliability - for me that issue is OR. Think it should be flagged as a source of opinion, not a source of factGleng 09:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. As you've probably noted, I too get flak. However so long as I can keep scrupulously away from issues of content (i.e. I'm not going to critically analyse any studies), I'll to provide my opinion on the quality of any source as a source, and will try to do so wholly objectively, if that's helpful ([1]). I'll help as time allows (just now is getting busy but I'll do my best). I won't care whether you or anyone else agrees with my opinion, and nobody has to pay any attention to it of course. Gleng 11:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; for now this is probably the best I can do. [2] I don't think I share your views on OM, though mine are probably more prejudiced than informed as I haven't gone into this deeply. But I don't think this is an issue where my opinions are even relevant; I certainly won't venture an opinion on OM, but will offer opinions on sources and how they are reported if asked. Just take care, and keep trying to see both sidesGleng 11:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC) User:TheNautilus/Gandhi[reply]

Shaken Baby

Thanks for the additions 70.171.229.32 22:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be kind and help me with a couple of inserts on the SBS page? Thanks, The Stroll The Stroll 00:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully DavidRuben's subsequent edits are satisfactory, this is not an area of familiarity for me either.--TheNautilus 04:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Ruben did an excelent job on coding the refernces and left out the Christmas tree lights. If Imay impose on you. I noticed that the SBS page was totally screwed up tonight by Bticho and had to switch it back to previous page. He had put in almost two pages (Word.doc) of information on ocular injury and retinal hemorrhages and screwed up the page. Last weekend he took out a number of refernces and information on scurvy that has not been put back. I have not had time to respond to the discussion (by the way thank you for all the positive information concering my additions and Dr, Clemetson)on the SBS page. I spent last weekend fixing the page and trying to put additional information and references. I don't think Bticho is involved with medicine or science, at least in this country as he should know that NIH would not do a study on vitamin C levels in the population that it is done by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHNES). A paper by Hampl JS,Taylor CA, Johnston CS was published in the American Journal of Public Health May 2004 Vol 94, No. 5 870-875 concerning the status of vitamin C deficiency and depletion in the United States. In their conclusion they state "In conclusion, our data indicate that a considerable number of children and adults in the United States are vitamin C deficient or depleted." There is more documentation besides this statement.

Can you suggest something I can do or who to talk with concerning his continuing ignorance? Deleting information and references from the page and putting his own statements in and finding a refernce at times to validate.

Thank you, 08:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC) The Stroll 08:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, actually I had just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful editing on the SBS article. I thought the sentiments you added regarding parental group concerns were on target. You may notice that I changed the wording to clarify the point, with which I totally agree (hope you don't mind, and if you do, please change it back). Contrary to the Stroll's comments which I have just read above, I have no vendetta against vitamin C advocates (having done much of my medical school research on the lens biochemistry of scorbutic mice, I am definitely a vit C supplement advocate). I certainly don't wish any innocent persons convicted of child abuse. Believe me, encountering an apparently shaken baby is among the most abhorrent clinical situations in ophthalmology -- what I would call the "lose-lose-lose" situation: the child clearly loses (either his life, health, or parent/caregiver), the family loses (even if they are not themselves abuse suspects), and the medical providers lose (partly because it's such a sad situation, but also because we end up spending so much time giving evidence, etc.). I don't even think the attorneys get any enjoyment from these cases. Unfortunately, I suspect the likelihood that scurvy is responsible for SBS is pretty remote. There are some studies being done, I believe, to measure ascorbate levels in suspected abuse victims, so we'll probably have a more definitive answer soon.

I don't intend to spend much more time on this article -- actually, SBS is not a major interest of mine, only the information on the previous version was so skewed, I thought that at least the currently accepted ophthalmologic viewpoint on the disease should be presented. I have learned much about the pros and cons of Wikipedia. The limitations of an open forum become painfully obvious with controversial subjects; I think it is much more pleasant to limit oneself to less combative topics. I certainly am glad I don't feel compelled / qualified to write about abortion, George Bush, the Middle East, etc.!

Anyhow, thanks again for your contributions,

Bticho 04:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I would let you know that Alteripse and Fyslee deleted all the vitamin C information from the SBS page, and were highly critical of your inserts and that is why they removed all of the information. Go see what they said.

The Stroll 01:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???? Where have I deleted anything in that article?

1. Wrong person...

2. Judging motives....

Please be a little more careful and a little less judgmental next time. -- Fyslee 13:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I went back and put the information back and Alteripse deleted it again and put in inaccurate information. I had put the Yurko case to reference in the "See Also." They have put totally inacute information in the "Nutriture hypothesis." - It has been suggested that vitamin C deficiency (scurvy) may account for some of the prosecuted cases of SBS or infant death because it can cause increased fragility of bones and skin. However, no cases of scurvy mimicking SBS or crib death have been reported, and scurvy typically occurs later in infancy, rarely causes death or intracranial bleeding, and is accompanied by other changes of the bones and skin and invariably an unusually deficient dietary history.

Bticho had added information today concern the use of Reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)for determining the storage levels of vitamin C within lymphocytes and tissue. It was a great reference, due to mentioning subclinical scurvy. Bticho had pointed out that the urine and blood plasma levels of vitamin C would not be able to be used in court. The last sentance with your information read: however these test strips might be useful for diagnostic testing, but not for legal purposes. This also included wording from Bticho. I called the major university hospital in my state today and they do not do the test and have to send the test to another state to a special lab. In my conversation with the toxicology department, they confirmed previous information I had obtained concerning testing for blood plasma levels also had to be sent to the same lab that was out of state and used spectrophotometry analaysis.

Alteripse left a message on my talk page to post my views on the discussion page. The vitamin C and histamine has been there for a week now and is very informative. If you would like to see what was deleted please let me know.

The Stroll 04:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back The Stroll 09:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to leave the thank you - for you yesterday. sorry Thank you for your help and discussions and for coming to the rescue.

The Stroll 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to replace the incorrect information that is currently contained in the Nutriture hypothesis. The information there is not a hypothesis, it is some person's biased opinion. A detailed explanation concerning SIDS and scurvy was written and published over 25 years ago in 1978 by Glen Dettman, BA, PhD and was the author of over 50 technical papers, 28 of which are listed on PubMed, and was awarded the Australian Medal of Merit for outstanding scientific research.

Factor "X", sub-clinical scurvy and S.I.D.S. Historical. Part 1. Australas Nurses J. 1978 Mar;7(7):2-5. No abstract available. PMID 418769 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I would like to put back the critical information concerning Clemetson and histamine, and all the references that was doucumenting Clemetson's hypothesis with valid and important information pertaining to vitamin C and histamine.

Thank you, again. The Stroll 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really hot topic. I suggest taking a hard look at Alteripse's objections and the previous editions of the Nutriture Hypothesis section and consider: (1) cleaner text/sentences with slightly better detail; (2) more detailed in-line references in lieu of verbiage if it is still sensible, phrase by phrase; (3) Alteripse acknowledged the vitamin K case, perhaps some deficiency phrase such as "other vitamins such a rare vitamin K disorder" with 1-2 refs; (4) get technical & editorial back up with someone else and *work it out carefully*. Alteripse is a prolific writer, editor, & admin with a specific medical interest & b/g, so double do your homework *before* you edit and be ready to deal with a challenge. One loses some credibility if one can't support the point editorially or technically. One other thing, if you look around Wikipedia you will see that there are a large number of medical doctors with strong, conventional medical opinions & strong writing skills that will constitute a vocal, insistent majority in some cases. If necessary, get help with your edits, but I am not that person. Many editors that fence with the doctors' mess have more than "Heidelberg scars" (former editors) and I have seen pile ons. Keep digging out references and be prepared to defend the sources' credentials in a conventional light (PhD, MD, publicly acknowledged work) and scientific rationale, nothing will be easy here. Good luck.--TheNautilus 22:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got the page on Dr. Clemetson done and posted. C. Alan B. Clemetson The Stroll 03:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help - I've added more since you were on the page. The Stroll 04:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left this message for JDWolff:

I was wondering if you would be kind as assist me with resorting the previous hypothesis information and deleting the inaccurate information contained in the "Nutriture hypothesis" section.

Thank you The Stroll 23:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a paediatrician and have a longstanding aversion against the whole ascorbate debate. I'm getting urticaria just thinking about it. I think having a sensible discussion on Talk:Shaken baby syndrome will be much more productive. For one thing, you will have to convince Fyslee and Alteripse that there is any point in exploding the whole nutriture thing beyond proportion. JFW | T@lk 14:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions about approching or recommending another editor for assistance?The Stroll 04:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much - still working on it - The Stroll 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Bticho is in a wierd mood and going on a binge at the SBS page the last two days and has put in totally inacurate information. The first change he made was to state that the "Focus" article was an editorial. "Focus is a 2 page quarterly update from the The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. At the end of the article, the editors expliciately state "Note: This update represents the views of the author, who is not a member of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists Working Party on Child Abuse, and as such does not represent the views of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists." I removed what he put on the page as the article is not an editorial. After I made the change today he has gone back on the page and added a whole new section entitled "How much shaking force is needed to cause shaken baby syndrome injury?" He also mentioned a Bristish study that was published in Jan of 2005 and says that it found fault in Bandak's study (that wasn't published in June 30, of 2005). I deleted everthing and now he has gome back and put the British study back in. Just because he finds a refence to justify his POV doesn't mean that it is accurate information. He has reverted back a paragraph saying that low-energy cyclic loading need to studied. These studies have already been done throughout the years. I can't believe he is a doctor!!!!!70.171.229.32 06:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got the "NH" coded and ready to go. Should I put in your recommendations for the edit summary? Thanks The Stroll 16:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

______ I put back in the suggested section and inaccurate information has been added back into the NH. Alteripse left a note on my talk page saying I needed to educate myself and not to do anything to the page. What was reinserted was "However, no cases of scurvy mimicking SBS or crib death have been reported, and scurvy typically occurs later in infancy, rarely causes death or intracranial bleeding, and is accompanied by other changes of the bones and skin and invariably an unusually deficient dietary history."

"Please do not add or subtract from this article until you have educated yourself on the topic. Your contributions to the article are misleading and misinformed and your changes in contravention of the discussion violates our customs. An encyclopedia is a repository of conventional knowledge and not a place for crank advocacy and fringe nonsense." Thanks for understanding. alteripse 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

PedEye1 was the person who reinserted the unreferenced. Apparently they both awre uneducated and have not even taken the time to read the references I provided showing a vitamin C deficency and scurvy causing Proptosis as described by Caffey in his 1946 paper Suman R, Dabi D (1998). "Scurvy-An Unusual Cause of Proptosis?" Indian Pediatrics 35: 915-6. In addition to Sloan B, Kulwin D, Kersten R (Jun 1999). ""Scurvy causing bilateral orbital hemorrhage."" (Abstract). Arch Ophthalmol 117 (6): 842-3. PMID 10369606.

Any suggestions concerning their bias? Thanks The Stroll 06:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

______________________

I added four refences to the Shaken Baby syndrome page yesterday concerning a Yahoo news story (Jan 30) about a study that was just published in Radiology. Alterpise deleted all four references and called it "junk":

• Yahoo News - Reuters Study finds baby brain bleeding in vaginal births

• Reported study in new issue (Jan 2007)of Radiology [Intracranial Hemorrhage in Asymptomatic Neonates: Prevalence on MR Images and Relationship to Obstetric and Neonatal Risk Factors] PMID 17179400

• Cushing H, Reprint of “Concerning Surgical Intervention for the Intracranial Hemorrhages of the New-born” (1905) Child's Nervous System Vol 16 Classics in Pediatric Neurosurgery pages 484-492 2000 PMID 11007498

• Williams Obstetrics "Diseases and Injuries of the Fetus and Newborn" Vol 20 Chapter 20 1997 page 997-998 Appleton & Lange, Stamford, CT ISBN 0-8365-9638-X Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum

• Williams Obstetrics "Diseases and Injuries of the Fetus and Newborn" Vol 22 Chapter 29 2005 page 649-691 McGraw-Hill Companies ISBN 0-07-141315-4

This is VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION that has been censored and deleted. Please help - Thank you The Stroll 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance. The Stroll 02:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAB

Would you be so kind and look at Dr. Clemetson's page - there are symbols all over the page.

Thank you The Stroll 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked back and the symbols were gone. Must have been with internal Wiki.The Stroll 18:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions or comments concerning the new addition on the CAB page in reference to the sources for the "Achievements." The information came from his CV and I have been told it is also listed in other sources. Thanks for your help.The Stroll 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Clemetson had sent me his CV a couple of years ago that was current to 2004, which I used to construct the page. I have a paper and an electronic copy. Most of the information is also listed in numerous Marquis publications, preferably Who's Who in America 1984-1985. There are later publications listed, however the last one I have listed is 1993. I know from my own experience with Marquis the same biographical sketch is used for multiple publications. I added the most current publications, since he was the one who got me involved with SBS in 2004. There is a possibility of having his CV posted for linkage if needed, will have to check into this though. He had to evacuate his house in New Orleans because of flooding from Katrina and went to Houston for almost a year, returning to New Orleans, shorty before his death. You mentioned a simple DVD version on C vols 1-3 for ??? The Stroll 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started to think about calling him about the subject in late August, 2005 if a simple text and graphics dump might be possible from original manuscript if he approached CRC Press on an out of print series. Obviously Katrina rained on that parade.--TheNautilus 11:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your note concerning the NH for the SBS. During the course of working on it I discovered that the info that you suggested was on opentopia that was apparently taken from an old Wiki SBS page. Haven't finished working on it. If you want to take a peek. Thanks The Stroll 03:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - i was wondering if you could assist me with the CAB page. Fyslee keeps restoring a tag on the page. The discussion page has a tag that the article is within the scope of the WikiProject Biography and has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. Any ideas as what to do? Thanks The Stroll 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few wiki links and would suggest wikifying a dozen or so more of the most promising words and phrases to other articles in Wikipedia to improve the CAB article to address shot_info and Fuyslee's suggestion. Then I'll take the tag off for you.--TheNautilus 00:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially libellous statements in articles

Regarding this edit, this statement must be cited in multiple reliable published. —Centrx→talk • 01:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations as of 05:31, 7 December 2006, Nobel Prize winners say sites falsely cite research (Ft. Worth) Star-Telegram. Sep. 10, 2006, and disclaimed by The Society for Glycobiology.Glyconutrient Disclaimer. Society for Glycobiology. accessed 7 Dec 2006. There are of course more cites available, but that might be perceived as over-emphatically negative.--TheNautilus 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Those need to be cited when you add the information to the article.
• The information is not firmly established fact, so it should be presented in its context. That is, "Three Nobel Prize-winning scientists have filed a complaint against the company in New York, etc.", not "The company is notorious for making unsupported claims, etc."

—Centrx→talk • 22:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I heard the point about contemporaneous reference & phrasing. I am satisfied with the current version that says it's unsupported/unsubstantiated theory of mechanism, where I think I could line up most of Wiki's "medical cabal" on this particular point (with whom I am frequently at odds with over science vs est'd medicine) and indeed I suspect some might have more to say about clonal spam sites and scientific/medical acceptance. (Mannatech is asserting digestion - substantial hydrolysis and assimilation - of polysaccharides as sources of exotic dietary monosaccharides that is at variance with 100 years of orthodox digestive theory and repeatedly refusing to address a major scientific point to back it up at all) I am not sure if you are seeking additional editing on that paragraph or if someone else is involved.--TheNautilus 23:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warburg

You asked for a source for my mentioning Otto Warburg. I recently read several biographies of him by Petra Werner as well as Hans Krebs' biography. As I recall, Sir Hans Krebs mentions this belief of his, and Petra Werner does too, but I can't remember in which one. What to do?--Alterrabe 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get the normal reference parts of the books - title, author, publisher, date and then try to get summaries or quotes about OW's actual vitamin recommendations (A, B (1-12), C, D etc ) and whether daily preventive multivitamins or he pushed specific therapies & when, with page numbers if you can. I am not surprised by OW doing this, but I have little detailed background either (the German Army used vitamins as I recall from history books). I know he was big into niacin since Abram Hoffer apparently quoted him frquently, also. I think the subsequent treatment of Warburg's early data on cellular anaerobiosis & acidity, as well as the Nazi era, also complicates, confuses & distracts the Anglo-Am picture of the man. Here we need to focus on his vitamin/nutrient recommendations, details can be in the footnotes, which are largely unknown here & now.--TheNautilus 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do so the next time I go to the library. I don't know if he OHW had specific recommendations. OW determined that niacin was involved in cell respiration if I'm not mistaken. He had isolated the niacin but didn't have enough to do the experiments he needed in order to do the analytic necessary to determine what it exactly was. It looked as if OW was going to have to slaughter thousands of horses to get enough niacin to do this work, which he, as an avid equestrian abhorred. Then a fellow scientist looked up the mysterious compound's weight and maybe some other qualities in a reference work of known compounds, and told him that it had to be niacin. OW replied, yesterday the substance was worth x amount of money (probably millions in todays $), today we can buy it for a few Marks per pond. --Alterrabe 12:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These sound interesting[3],

also: Kiegler, Guggenheim and Warburg: Vitamin C vs. Toxins, 1938.

Another, unattributed: In 1954 the reporter of the German weekly magazine Stern visited Dr. Otto Warburg...in his laboratory grinding his own flour in a small hand operated mill. The reporter learned that Warburg and his associates made their own flour and their own bread... why? Dr. Warburg explained: "most of the vitamins essential for life as well as important protein building blocks, such as methionine, are all destroyed."

ca 1967, "before" Pauling defines "orthomolecular" (1968), Warburg is making sounds very similar to Abram Hoffer about B vitamins in mental illness - when did he start?--TheNautilus 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume long before. Was it in '66 or '67 that he gave the long speech in Lindau to the Nobel Laureates about his ideas on medicine? It would not be in keeping with his training as a scientist to make claims unsubstantiated by significant empiric evidence, especially to so august a body. Warburg was an excellent scientist, but not a man who worried all too much about the world around him. Supposedly at the end of the war, his main concern was getting his lab going again.--Alterrabe 10:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC) What Hoffer sources are you citing? From the biographies I've read, I can only conjecture. Bear in mind that OHW was both a MD and PhD. He would have been well within his rights, perhaps even ethically obliged to use, the best treatment of which he knew, when treating patients. The Krebs biography is not that good, perhaps even trite. To the best of my knowledge the definitive biography remains to be written. I do NOT know whether he treated patients. What I DO know is that he was extremely respected as a scientist, and that this made life far easier for him. One of the reasons why the Nazis did not in anyway discriminate against him - in fact they redefined him as being 1/4 Jewish despite the fact that his father was Jewish, which greatly reduced the amount of persecution he faced - was that he was rumored to be close to a breakthrough in treating cancer. The German Democratic Republic also displayed a remarkable amount of forbearance, giving him a pass that allowed him to cross the Inter-German border as he pleased, which he was known to do when riding. West Berlin was rather urbanized for obvious reasons. The more OHW you read, the more OHW you want to read.--Alterrabe 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abram Hoffer explores B's esp. niacin, B6, C starting in the early 50s along with biochemistry & non-chemical rapid diagnostic proposal, making waves in the 60s. Reinvigorated in the '80s with Pauling's C fights, he moves into writing about general complementary nutrition for cancer and nutrition for psychiatric use. OHW has several major opportunities to make earlier major statements, 30s & wartime, but we need sources--I'clast 07:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the outlines of Hoffer's work. I've read most of what one university library has to offer on Warburg. You essentially either find biographies or the results of experiments in labs, some of which is utterly tantalizing. I at least, haven't found Hoffer-style patient reports from OHW. It's vastly easier to find sources on Hoffer's opinions about nutrients than it is to find Warburg's. The Krebs biography does allude to his theories, but in the sense that he was eccentric, almost mad, but loved any way because he was so brilliant. Krebs is also very reticent on Warburg's domestic situation.

To really understand what went through these mens' minds, I think you'd have to look into Hoffer, Pfeiffer, Pauling, Warburg, Albert von Szent-Györgyi, Dean Burk, and perhaps David Moss. Pfeiffer and Hoffer were more into nutrients, experiments with the sick and clinical work, Warburg more into labwork, especially at the cellular level, and theoretical understanding, Pauling and von S-G were more into the theoretical understanding of the physics of all this, and Dean Burk was also a truly interesting man. Moss was a friend of von S-G and Dean Burk, and more the chronicler of their efforts. They all knew of each other, at times worked together; to greater and lesser degrees their work was a collaborative project. Would you be interested in staring a page on Dean Burk? A truly interesting man.--Alterrabe 09:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a brief article on Warburg, more can be found with google. http://www.cancerdecisions.com/031404_page.html--Alterrabe 09:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea about starting a page on Dean Burk, a brilliant scientist! Also worked at the National Cancer Institute. The Stroll 18:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Started a Dean Burk article, left a stub.--TheNautilus 12:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few details to the Dean Burk article. Others undoubtedly will add more. We seem to keep running into each other; I just fleshed out your stub on Thomas Levy.--Alterrabe 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

... for your comments on my talk page. I've responded there. MastCell 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Burk

I need some help with Dean Burk's pictures. I uploaded two pictures and have one placed. I got a copyright bot for the copyright tag - public domain with the National Library of medicine. the second picture I uploaded I tried to place the picture with some code that I could upload from the page, howevre the picture is on the "Commons." I also got a tag for Clemetson's picture that I said I had created. HELP - Thanks The Stroll 04:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - HHS / NIH Press release 1/24/2007

--News National Cancer Institute

Positive results of a phase III cancer clinical trial in an uncommon form of leukemia were released today. The results showed that adult patients with previously untreated acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who had standard chemotherapy to induce remission of their disease, and then received the chemotherapy drug arsenic trioxide to maintain remission, had a significantly better event-free survival (more patients free of leukemia) and better overall survival than those who received only standard chemotherapy. The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and was led by one of its Cooperative Clinical Trials Groups -- the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB).

NIH News ReleaseThe Stroll 19:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hair analysis in alternative medicine / Pfeiffer

I added some data to hair analysis in alternative medicine, and found that it was changed before I even had finished editing. I don't understand the finesses of debating what wikipedia covers. Would you mind taking a look? Where can I find the explanations of the abbreviations in the editing comments?--Alterrabe 22:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC) I'll answer on your page.[reply]

Fyslee and I also disagree on the Pfeiffer Treatment Center entry. I think there is just enough evidence to justify maintaining it as an entry. I suspect and hope that in a year or two, much more evidence will be around to make it clear that the entry is justified, indeed adds greatly to wikipedia. Alone, I don't have the energy to maintain the PTC entry. If feel that we can keep it going, I'll keep it, otherwise I'll make a tactical withdrawal to these people who are documented to have been wrong on numerous occasions.--Alterrabe 10:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes to the hair analysis (alternative medicine) article. I wanted to alert you to my contribution to the talk page; I think it would be wise and timely to rename the article.--Alterrabe 20:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can't just "rename" articles here. It's not only a very involved process, it would be viewed as POV suppression. Wikipedia and its articles must present (not sell) all significant POV, which means that controversial articles have sections for (or at least include) criticism. They just have to be presented in an NPOV manner, and be from verifiable and reliable sources, among other inclusion criteria. -- Fyslee 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on idea of NPOV or POV suppression. Personally, I felt that a more academic approach, (sub)articles grouped on technique and/or analyte category would have been far superior and NPOV, rather than hair analysis (alternative medicine) which appears an intrinsic POV pejorative, no matter what technical merits and datasets are finally allowed to develop. Again read the CDC report, HA is actually now an area of recognized national need.--TheNautilus 21:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question the proper use of hair analysis in some scientific fields, as mentioned in the Hair analysis article. That link you provided looks like a good source for that article. -- Fyslee 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nautilus: I agree that hair analysis (alternative medicine) can easily be taken to be an intrinsically non-POV description, and I feel in any event that this title does not do justice to the contents of the article after I added studies that would appear to prove that hair tests may well have uses that are scientifically legitimate but not yet acknowledged by "mainstream medicine." Nautilus, what would I do to get the title renamed?--Alterrabe 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee: For the record, I was never contemplating a "midnight" re-naming of the article, but rather a discussion of whether the title is truly appropriated. I even suggested how to fork the article a second time if we must do so. Do either Seidel or Barrett mention the work by Ryan?--Alterrabe 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my concern, there seems to be little pathway for HA(alt med) to identify progress less than "offical" blanket acceptance. Based on technique or analyte, several problems dissolve. Critics have to deal with specific, apples-to-apples techniques hopefully automatically, where order of magnitude changes/errors apparently occur with techniques like sampling & processing (e.g. "washing"), or with detection, lower limits. (real science often isn't the 4th decimal place but dealing with data, predictions or results that vary by *order(s) of magnitude* and identification of "little things" for consistency). Progress is easier to monitor and datasets are "pure" rather than combined for evaluation in the public's eye. The lab oriented people already know this.

Alterrabe, it's the "Move" tab at the top after you sign in.--TheNautilus 00:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the real world isn't as "perfect" or "neat" as the laboratory! All this means that the risk of WP:OR is very great when developing the HA(alt med) article. Sticking to V & RS is the best way to do it. Since it's a scientific subject, the sources that are considered WP:V & WP:RS for such subjects are usually of a much higher quality than such sources for non-scientific areas of interest. The standards for what is acceptable are different. Fringe science and so-called "cutting edge" (*) alternative medicine approaches have few V & RSources (well, they have plenty of verifiable, but those aren't "reliable" in the wiki sense), which places alt med at a disadvantage in regards to "mainstream", where there is plenty of good research to draw on as sources. I can understand the frustration many alt med proponents must feel with this situation here, but Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and wisely seeks to build a quality encyclopedia, using a well-sourced presentation of all significant POV. It's certainly an interesting process, and it keeps marketers and hawkers of their "wonderful, new, and fantastic cutting edge" methods from using it to sell their ideas and products.

(*) "If you're on the cutting edge, you're on the wrong side of the knife." - Fyslee 08:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Lab oriented people" (they may not be "lab people") often deal with *far messier* real world problems, sometimes literally picking up the pieces when conventional wisdom, practices and paradigms fail repeatedly or dramatically. Yes, I have seen that standards can be different. I think I see it most clearly with the spamlinked QW references. Some here seem oblivous to a crisis in the "reliable sources" themselves. This problem was previously cited in the references, including JAMA, at orthomed talk. Yes, I see the "marketers and hawkers" problems here, where livelihoods and other close relations are often aligned with the editors' interests, not quite sure how removing them would affect Wikipedia. I might get lonely or bored without so many "conventional" editors.--TheNautilus 22:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut oil

I've refactored your comments slightly. Hope you don't mind. Given your history with supporting extremely inappropriate edit warriors who support your points of view, I think it might be best if you just stayed away from the discussion. I certainly find it extremely inappropriate of you to suggest I'm harrassing an editor who from the very start made personal attacks against me. --Ronz 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit too much like the situation with Ilena, where you repeatedly encouraged her with comments about how bad others' behavior was, while you completely ignored that it was her behavior that was grossly inappropriate. Editors are responsible for their own behavior. It is inappropriate to encourage them to ignore their own behavioral problems and to instead blame other editors for their actions.

Perhaps you'd like to change your comments on User_talk:68.114.225.198 with this in mind? --Ronz 16:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm confused by the third diff that you point out [4]. Aren't you just commenting again on the previous one [5]? --Ronz 16:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored your comments fairly heavily. You also mistook one of my comments for the other editor's, and so accused me of deleting his comments when there were actually my own. I've bolded it so you can find it easily.

Looks like I was right comparing this to the situation with Ilena. Your attempt at dispute resolution is too much a personal attack, not enough an attempt to understand and resolve the issues. Perhaps you should take your own suggestions to heart, rather than using them as attacks?

You either don't like, or chose to ignore my attempts at helping this editor. If it's the former, I welcome suggestions given in a civil manner on my talk page. Giving such suggestions on the article's talk page, and being incivil in the process, only escalates the problem and is inappropriate for an article talk page per WP:TALK.

Finally, this interaction has given me a few ideas as how to better respond in such circumstances. I'm definitely going to clarify my own replies differently. I think I'll try mostly strikeouts. It would have made it harder for you to make the mistake you did when I deleted my comment. --Ronz 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with all your plans for Talk:Coconut oil. I'm certainly not participating further if you continue to ignore WP:TALK. --Ronz 00:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate you not reworking my comments anymore, it greatly distorts and misconstrues my analyses and their points. Legitimate analyses of actions and edits are not personal attacks. I, as well as others including lawyers, arbs and other editors, have disagreed with your prolific WP policy citations and interpretations.

As for the Ilena remarks, such comparisons and assertions are hugely prejudicial to the newbie editors. "Help" that consistently antagonizes, silences or quickly drives off promising newbie editors needs to be carefully reconsidered.

I have no personal "plans" for the Coconut Oil article. When I stumbled onto it and the newbie editor on the defensive, I felt, based on the prior edits, that the newbie had real potential. With a suitable, matched counterpart, this could shape up that article to yield the kind of WP NPOV-SPOV such articles can benefit greatly from.--TheNautilus 11:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WQA and AN/I seem to be a waste of time, so I'm responding here.

As long as you don't appreciate the behavioral policies and guidelines here, all the while harassing me, it's probably best not to begin a request from me with "I would appreciate you..." It comes across as extremely hypocritical and insulting.

I'll refactor when I see it's warranted, which means almost all the time with you. I'm take some direction from you on this though, and I'll be sticking closer to the letter of the policies and guidelines. Unlike you, I'm going to still follow their spirit as well.

You're still complaining about my citing policies? Better find someone to speak for you on this, as I just ignore your complaints - I find them just a bit of odd harrassment from you. I've never seen anyone agree with you on it ever. I certainly think it's preferable to cite policies, rather than to insult and attack.

As for the Ilena remarks - too bad. I've only brought them up because you've chosen not to discuss problems, and even then, I've limited them to your talk page. If your inability to address concerns about your behavior become "hugely prejudicial" to other editors, then perhaps you should address the concerns? You're reminding me of Ilena's persistant cry of being a victim when faced with her own blatant problems - she never could take responsibility for her actions.

And while we're discussing being "hugely prejudicial", perhaps you should read what you've been writing about me on other talk pages. --Ronz 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks on my discussions are confusing. Variously I seem accused of saying too much, and now, too little. Previous claims of "harrassment" when I merely note (what I consider obvious) misuse or miscitations after being machine gunned with them sound hollow, if not bellicose, to me. I am not the one who upbraided three newbies to the point of leaving in short order for thin reasons and a (highly contrived) guilt by association with Ilena. If my polite request to stop putting words in my mouth, making patent mischaracterizations & false claims[6] (demonstrated, [7]& [8]) and deleting inconvienent points like biting new editors, is not clear enough, perhaps you missed some of the points that the management has had to say about your "refactoring"[9][10] editing other people's comments tends to antagonize rather than calm them.--TheNautilus 09:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you want to stop with the bullying, harassment, and venting. Then maybe we can have a civil conversation. Until then, I'm trying to spend my time with editors that actually respect others and Wikipedia. --Ronz 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling "ref" tags, et cetera

Greetings! I was just going to leave you a very short note about dangling "ref" tags, but after perusing your talk page, I guess the "et cetera" part takes priority. Whew -- you certainly have taken on a daunting, one might say Herculean (or perhaps Sysiphean), task/role! I wish you the best of luck -- hope you don't "burn out". All too many of the people who challenge orthodox views (health/medicine, science/technology, history, etc.) here on Wikipedia aren't really up to the job, but I can see from your edits that you have serious knowledge of orthomolecular medicine & related subjects. Do you work in that field?

As for those dangling "ref" tags (just one, actually)...

Last night I took care of a few things that I saw needed fixing on the Linus Pauling article -- most importantly, a messed-up section in the references, which I knew from experience, the moment I spotted it, was the result of a dangling "ref" tag somewhere in the article. I located the source of the problem and inserted the "closed ref" tag (</ref>) to set things right. It's amazing how much havoc one tiny, innocent-looking [1]

All of which is by way of saying, be really, really careful with those ref tags... :)

The really incredible thing is that by pure serendipity, I came along just one day after your edit. More often than not, these things go unnoticed for weeks or even months -- I kid you not! They're so much easier to fix properly when there haven't been dozens of other edits in between (as I can attest to personally).

Regards, Cgingold 23:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

1. [oops, see what I mean?!] ... ref tag can wreak on an article!

CAB 2

Hi - It's been a long time. Need some help The Quackbuster Fyslee is back at it again. He is back on Dr. Clemetson's page [[11]] and undid an edit I made. Can you help or what should I do?

Thanks The Stroll 04:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shot info just revert the page now - looks like the Quackbusters are after the page. Seems quite odd since the page has been there for seven months with only Fyslee making waves.

Thanks The Stroll 18:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'clast, I would appreciate it if you would inform your friend The Stroll that the article has been left totally alone until The Stroll improperly removed a standard tag. No edits to the article were made or changed. No one is "after the page," and no one has been "making waves." It was The Stroll that made the first move. Such paranoia only makes The Stroll look unglued. The fact that The Stroll also revealed my real name is a serious matter and a bannable offense and will not be tolerated. We need to get the long and nasty Barrett v. Rosenthal ArbCom behind us, learn from it and keep personal information off of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee/talk 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

``````````` Apparent after a discussion on Barrett's talk page Fylsee has made a number of edits and deletions on Dr. Clemetion's page. The page is comparable to the vast majority of biographies posted on Wikipedia and has also receive a rating. Fylsee continues to delete information and edit with an uneducated POV and refuses to educated himself. Look at the talk page and edits. Dr, Clemetson is known world wide for his early pioneering work with preeclampsia, which deserves an explantion and the seriouness of the condition. Prior to his death Dr. Clemetson was invited as an honored guest for his contributions and being the pioneer with preeclampsia to participate in a national conference on preeclampsia. I placed all his medical papers on the page, as one never knows what you might find that is of interest on older papers. Fylsee also deleted the information on the description of Barlow's disease, so no one would know why Dr. Clemetson published a number of papers concerning the disease and the relationship to infantile scurvy. They, Fylsee, Shot Info and Ronz are threating to trim the page back to a stub. Thanks for your help! 70.171.229.32 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "threatening" anything. I am pointing out relevant policies and guidelines. I encourage everyone to discuss them on the article talk page. --Ronz 04:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

How do I send an email to you? The Stroll 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP

HI, I am asking you for help. Quackbusters are hijacking the Vitamin C and Vitamin C megadosage pages. Very dishonest practices. I'm exhausted and utterly revolted.

Copy of this message was sent to The Stroll. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be any of the usual sort of Quackbusters...unless you actually mean "anybody that I disagree with" in which case, yes Quackbusters....or just Wikipedians, here's a read which will help :-). Shot info 11:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Quackbusters" might or might not be the proper term. But, Shot Info, thanks for the link on people who think there are cabals against them ("here's a read which will help"), thank you so much, but I suggest you take more time to analyze the problem. You could perhaps go back in the histories of the talk pages and of the vit c megadosage page. Also see the vit C page. If you want more comments, go to my userpage, okay?

But couldn't you just wait for the answer of TheNautilus? Picture this. I come to your place, you open the door, I tell you a short introductory phrase, and somebody steps in, from nowhere and answers, saying, "Wait! he believes there's a cabal against him!", before you could say a word.

Sorry, TheNautilus, for these discussions on your talk page, before you could say a word. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 19:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Stephen Barrett

Your commenting there with this account could be taken as sock puppetry. I'm sure it was an innocent mistake, but please fix it. Thanks. --Ronz 17:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old sources

FWIW, if it is difficult to access an old printed journal, I will sometimes accept full text copies available from a self-published site; http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/ strikes me as such a resource. I would have supported you on this in the Klenner AfD but only noticed it when it had already been closed. (Not that I think my support would have saved the Klenner article.) Avb 00:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Orthomolecular psychiatry

FYI, I've put in a request for comment for a section of the Orthomolecular psychiatry page. It's on Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry. WLU (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your kindness and philanthropy in assiduously explaining orthomolecular concepts to the wikipedia community. Alterrabe (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hi,

I've moved some of your comments on Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry to the bottom of discussions - by my reading it's pretty easy to see what specific points you are referring to, and it makes it easier to respond to your points this way. I thought WP:TALK supported this quite strongly, but I think I'm either remembering an older version or being overzealous. If you'd like to replace them to their former position, feel free, but I'd rather my replies to your replies remain at the bottom. Thanks, WLU (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative medicine

You recently amended a sentence in Alternative medicine to, I believe, allude to a biochemical basis for some alternative medicines. The full sentence read: Alternative medicine practices may be based on non-traditional belief systems or philosophies, biochemical principles or biological observations, and some may not follow the scientific method. Perhaps I am quibbling semantics, but there seems to be an ambiguity in that phrasing regarding whether "non-traditional" modifies both "belief systems or philosophies" and "biochemical principles or biological observations," or if "biochemical principles or biological observations" is a subordinate clause to "may be based on." I reverted your edit, but would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to make a revised and sourced contribution to help build a better encyclopedia. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

When citing medical research, such as on troponin, please consider using {{cite journal}}, which formats the reference according to agreed style conventions. JFW | T@lk 08:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

I informed all the uninvolved editors who commented in the RfC about your revert-warring, please read WP:CANVASS. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I missed your broadcast. For the record, I don't consider Antelan, and Fill, exactly neutral in "skeptic's" discussion. A problem here seems to be that a number of editors think they have a enough technical background to dismiss and disparage the OMM subject while accepting inferior text and references that fail WP:V in the complete fact checking sense, as well as other NPOV, COI, RS problems.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communication

I wanted to say here, instead of on the OMM talk page, that some of your comments have been difficult to parse. You might be more successful at convincing other editors to agree with your points if you explained your views in plain, direct, complete sentences. Sprinkling a handful of initials in the sentences does not improve clarity. "I think this is a better source than that" is more intelligible than "This fails V RS POV." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. There are several problems that I wrestle with here. First is that I have always been a painful writer. Second is that CAM related articles and personalities have frequently been heavily wikilawyered in "discussion" with "skeptics" where references, policy basis, & cites are essential to avoid being run over. Compounding all this is that often, where there is WP:V, RS sources, research and clinical experience, my response is made tedious by trying to unwind complex, loaded statements that are founded on multiple false or inaccurate presumptions where I have to fill in a lot of background information.

I have re-done a one paragraph lede again, although it is clearly reaching the point of binary fission.--TheNautilus (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nautilus, I have been reading your posts on the RS/N and I too found them very difficult to parse and make sense of. Many of the posts mention wikipedia policy abbreviation (V, RS, POV, COATRACK, UNDUE, OR), but while I am very familiar with all these policies and guidelines - they often do not seem relevant to the point you appear to be making and seem to be thrown in willy-nilly (example: "it is a trade organization beholden to its politics and concentrated financial concerns, where WP:V has too frequently punched holes in its WP:RS on matters of competitors and orthodoxy."). Also, in my view, throwing in slurs like extremists and partisans, instead of strengthening your argument, makes it less credible.
May I suggest that it is not necessary to respond to each and every comment on the noticeboard; instead it would be better if you take your time and post your thoughts in one place succinctly and in plain English. That will make it easier for "outside" editors like me to understand your argument. Hope you don't mind my offering unsolicited advice. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

Hi there. I'm worried about your recent behaviour at the article about orthomolecular medicine. You seem to me to have begun to show signs of tendentious editing. I would like to head this off before you have any problems with other editors, so please read this essay very closely and think about how people might see your actions in this light. I would also recommend reading the guideline on Disruptive editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I've been having similar thoughts about your editing. Although formally cool and simulate AGF replies, your answers are knowledgeably provocative and brush past substantive discussion with superficial replies, POV pushing *really* poor, obsolete references, SOAPBOXing unreliable sources by WP:V criteria, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work and opinions with UNDUE weight to promote a false light if not a defamatory result. Your edits, however subtle to the passersby and unknowledgeable, especially considering the scientific background that you claim, ignore the substance of my points and pretty much burn through any basis for AGF.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to avoid legal words such as "defamatory" on Wikipedia, as they may imply to other editors that you are considering legal action. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I affirm that I am not considering legal action. However, that whole phrase describes my perception of, & concerns about, of the direction of recent edits and results at Orthomolecular medicine.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but I share TimVicker's concerns and especially would point out OWNERSHIP concerns regarding the Orthomolecular related articles. This has been a longstanding problem, with your "TheNautilus" user name being devoted to a one-man SPA mission to dominate and push through your own version. Your repeated mentions of your supposedly greater knowledge (and that may be true, but here that is quite irrelevant as a playing card, and you should know that) as a justification for trumping your will through is an old problem and quite distasteful and irrelevant. It would also help if you used less esoteric terminology and simplified your language, with more (but less volume) being actually said, rather than the current "more between the lines" than actually being said. Cryptic speech doesn't help your cause. Now you know that Tim is not the only one concerned about these matters. -- Fyslee / talk 01:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I really do try to get the current, full story to get the science part straight, consistent with policy. I have been too frequently denied with "the moon is green cheese" to leave out details. Sometimes by people who otherwise would lightweight me technically (bad move) or push their group view. In real science & technology, the best, most fundamentally based answers frequently turn out to be politically confounded, for disrupting many peoples' most cherished biases. Here at WP I see clear error, POV, kiddie tales, 2nd, 3rd,... hand reflections of unreliable sources (ahem) & vested interests (e.g. a fmr lawyer for an [infamous drug] & various purveyors that compete with the subjects at hand), that are suspectible to better references and science using WP:V, RS, NPOV.

Because of various common information gaps, I sometimes have that steep hill to climb, to get supporting information to surface, and summarized to make my points supportable in bite sized chunks. I have a strong belief that better science based answers should prevail over erroneous commonplaces through WP:V on flawed or obsolete references. I wish to point out that your friends & "q-family" are the ones who force fed me the most jargon here. You can tell I think someone is being dense or biased when I start to pound the details. In real life, I find three attempts & denials mean that I am dealing with obstinance or an agenda that will cost everybody dearly long term. As for OWN, well there *are* continuing efforts to disparage other groups, such as orthomed, in articles with demonstrably false & deprecating statements, innuendo and insinuations that are not dealt with adequately. Whereas in the converse there is *no* real criticism is allowed by these same editors as OWNERs of some WP pages.

In the current article at hand, shocking disparagement that I think is akin to hate speech is being allowed, beyond NPOV summarization, and WP:V and RS to cast a clearly false light. This to me, looks like too many editors can't be objective about WP:V references to get past the "Santa Claus" stage. Or that the mainstream at the mouth of the 21st century may already be wider than their branch of some tributary through a swamp.--TheNautilus (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Nautilus], it would help the encyclopedic article if you actually paraphrased rather than copy the journals. Also if would help your edits if you wrote on the talk page in English rather than jargon, that way the rest of the editors that you are attempting to seek consensus with can understand you. Shot info (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually use direct quotes in the articles' body to end "is too-is not" situations. Similarly, my direct quotes in Talk are abstracted so it doesn't get missed or that I can be sure someone is rushing past my point on policy.

There really is a huge background gap to be bridged that makes this tendious when someone wants to shove an ancien regime' over the current facts. If you think it is a pain to read; consider that the writing and referencing effort dwarf that. It would save a lot of time for all to read slowly for comprehension the first time and then ask simple questions rather than loaded questions, or push loaded statements, that are hard (and lengthy) to unwind.

In the end the Talk discussions do allow all of us to sharpen our points and thinking if one is willing to participate.--TheNautilus (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)--TheNautilus (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lede?

I have noticed that you often use the term "lede". What do you mean by it? Since Wikipedia doesn't use an "Introduction", but something similar (though not identical), which it calls the "LEAD", are you referring to it, or to something else? -- Fyslee / talk 07:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give lede a go :-) Shot info (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that TheNautilus is using the word in this sense, but who knows. "Lede" describes something quite different than "LEAD", so I'd still like an explanation. -- Fyslee / talk 16:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? The first sentence of WP:LEAD is "The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading." I think that indicates that the folks at WP:LEAD mean for all four of these terms to be interchangeable for Wikipedia purposes, and -- rather than restricting it to the first paragraph or two of a newspaper article -- to mean any summarizing text at the beginning, particularly if it's above the table of contents.

I wouldn't, of course, presume to speak for TheNautilus if he's using it to mean something more specific. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I hadn't noticed that that word had been added. I can see here that there has been controversy over that addition. Whatever the case may be, a Wikipedia LEAD isn't exactly the same as a normal lede in a journal article because of our requirements that it mirror the article. Now that you have pointed it out, I'm going to assume that the choice of word is just a personal idiosyncracy, which is fine. Finished here. -- Fyslee / talk 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be a more common term here, ca 2006.--TheNautilus (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto

TheNautilus, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

Hello, TheNautilus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_accounts_editing_on_alternative_medicine. Yours, --Tim Vickers (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AN/I is pure harrassment and appears to be inciting a partisan attack for a simple signing problem on Talk page material already under my signature. The narrow IP range has been long acknowledged on my user page. As far as I know, most QW partisans seem to appreciate the occasional IP drop anyway, although in some cases it does appear to take the form of various harrassment. See also WP:HUSH]--TheNautilus (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (TheNautilus)

Hello, TheNautilus. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus, where you may want to participate. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet account?

Hi,

Could you provide me with an unambiguous answer to the following questions? I've been referred to a variety of venues with a lot of diffs, but I figure this is the easiest way to clarify.

• Are you the same person as editor I'clast?

• If so, are you aware of WP:SOCK?

• If so, do you have a legitimate reason per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts?

• If so, do you have a reason for not placing a notice on both user and talk pages alerting other editors to these accounts? Would you object to placing such a notice prominently on your user page (such as {{Alternative account}}), or adding redirects to help others realize that the separate accounts are the same person?

• If you are not I'clast, could you explain these two edits Original comment by TheNautilus and I'clast replaces signature? I realize the burden of explanation is on I'clast, but any clarity would be appreciated. WLU (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have left the same questions here as well. Thanks, WLU (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed [12][13], etc (see included links). This issue has been stated directly in detail several times, including editors that you were in contact with earlier[14], but either they forgot or are modest. At this point you can be assured the "sockpuppet" issue is being raised for merely harrassment purposes, see WP:HUSH.--TheNautilus (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I'm being slow, but you do not seem to state in any of the links that you either are, or are not, the same person. I believe I have looked at all of the links, and sub-links you provided, and none of them contain a statement by yourself or I'cast that says you are, or are not the same person. There are legitimate uses for separate accounts, includingsecurity/public access, pre-emptive anti-vandalism, clean starts, bots and role accounts on an exception basis. I believe in all cases, notification is, if not required, then recommended. I believe the exception is when the aribitration committee has been informed. You may believe that this accusation from other editors is harrassment, but I have only worked with you on a single article I believe (Orthomolecular psychiatry) but consider sockpuppeting troubling, particularly combined with equivocation. There are legitimate uses of multiple accounts, but the avoidance of scrutiny is specifically singled out as not being one of them and an editor who acts in keeping with wikipedia's policies and guidelines should not use or require them. Could you please deny or confirm that you are, or are not the same editor? WLU (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that in your reply above, you cite legal anti-troll use. I do not believe that the use of two accounts is a legitimate way of dealing with harrassment, though dispute resolution and requesting assistance from an administrator is. Do I mis-understand your comment, am I missing a policy or guideline somewhere, or has arbitration been involved? Again, I am requesting an explict answer, as I am very, very bad at reading between lines, and doing so always risks projecting one's pre-existing conceptions on the situation. Please provide a yes or no. WLU (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a semi-open structure that was evolved to acclimate new editors whose presumptions were so devastated by a serious SPOV and actual source research that they might stay focused on the issues at hand, malevolent temptation would be reduced, and serious stalking or trollish intent identified early on. Most editors that engage me long term seem to find or figure it out but stabilize before they jump to erroneous conclusions over the controversial articles. This was necessary after being hounded by a powerful (previously) paid pharmaceutical advocate operating under several socks raising hell, trying to create "incidents" as well as some orther ugly trolling experiences that resulted in multiple indef blocks. The arb bureaucracy and some admins have long been informed, several times.--16:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So based on this comment, 1) you are the same person as User:I'clast 2) the separation of accounts was used in the past because of harassment, and 3) arbitration has been informed? If this is the case, since you have informed arbitration, and now everyone else, why not redirect to a single account? You say it was to acclimate new editors, suggesting this was used for more than just you - could you link to the page discussing this? The obvious problem of multiple accounts is the ability to circumvent blocks (it is the editor who is blocked, not the account) and the appearance or reality of avoiding scrutiny. It places editors on an uneven footing regards blocking and any reviews of their actions. The appropriate response to harassment is not multiple accounts. Further, if any accounts of yours were indef blocked, you should not be editing without review by at minimum the blocking admin. Could you refer me to the informed arb members/admins so they can make a statement clarifying this on the ongoing RFC? Without the review of external, respected, parties, the issues raised in the RFC that involve interpretation of policies is a very, very critical area of discussion. Your perception of harassment could be another's routine interpretation of a policy or guideline. An external review is required to preclude ongoing disruption based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of policy, or to confirm harassment and deal with it appropriately. Please redirect all accounts that you may have to a single account, and disclose all previous editing pseudonyms; failing that a statement by a member of arbcom saying this has been dealt with is sufficient. WLU (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An improved understanding of policy by TimVickers and WLU with the supportive statements by arbcomm/admins/other editors have resolved the false sock claims both at RfC and AN/I. Thanks to all that provided constructive input and impartial answers.--TheNautilus (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a ringing endorsement - I think the policy is stupid and invites abuse but as it is within the letter of the policy then there is no reason based on WP:SOCK to continue; however if the RFC on your behaviour has a negative outcome and multiple accounts continue, that would seem to violate WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. I also asked for the name of the admin or arbitrator who had OK-ed the account. FloNight's reply is hardly a ringing endorsement, discusses you saying you had ceased editing with a previous account (not that you currently had two). The 'clean start' specifies "a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct," and if your conduct is the same as previous behavior that got you in trouble, that's not a valid use of multiple accounts. Legit uses also generally require alt account notices, which do not appear on this, or I'clast's page right now. A genuine appreciation of the intention of the policy would follow all aspects, not merely the ones that are convenient. WLU (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of I'Nauts many identified accounts are I'clast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/TheNautilus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/24.237.220.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/24.237.220.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/66.58.130.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/66.58.130.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/69.178.31.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/69.178.41.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Shot info (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devoid of the real underlying facts and AGF.--TheNautilus (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are what they are. Underlying "facts" are merely reinterpretations of the facts to generate spin. Shot info (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing sentence

Hi, you should really be careful not to come across too strong or longwinded. I saw this:

Orthomolecular treatments typically have been experimentally or empirically introduced by physicians or researchers when conventional medical treatments offered neither solution[1][2] nor hope.[3][4], I had earlier referenced four dramatic examples. In one, the early use (ca 1977) of lipoic acid by Burton Berkson (PhD-MD), demonstrates an OMM approach, to stop and reverse the lethal course of deadly mushroom poisoning at death's doorstep when the conventional medicine was to watch 'em die under supportive care, very painfully & slowly.

I thought that saying that conventional medicine offered no hope was a bit too POVish way to begin the history. I moved your references around in the article rather than taking them out. One is here, another is here. I believe another is here. You can use CTRL-F to find the last one; the title of the reference hasn't changed. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so Jefffire's removal was even more in error with those cited references still in the article and my suggestion of asking for a {{cn}), to be re-cited, stands. Unfortunately I am longwinded where there is missing information. It is the only way I know how to counter the multiple error broadsides. When more than one or two points are commonly misunderstood, a detailed explanation is the only way to stop the "crazy-stupid-POV-pseudoscience" accusations and dismissals.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Orthomolecular medicine, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Reinsertion of original research without explanation on the talk pages is highly problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have different ideas about what or who[15][][16] is disruptive. My editing is science based, based on a lot of references. The double standards often employed here seem to insist on short sound bite quotes for me summarizing lengthy, complex but accurate material vs often vague accusations based on uninformed drivel. Sometimes the library resources I have access to simply cannot deliver the references that I would prefer to use if I had a health & medical library 10-100x larger like some other editors, which some clearly don't use to attempt to collaborate with me.--TheNautilus (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for further correction

Of course "defective" is a relative term in the case of the HFE gene regarding multivitamins. Thanks! Daughter of Mímir (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orthomolecular medicine. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern, I am not in violation of 3RR. I have cited a clear WP:BLP problem, and some editors appear to be there to push a clique's QW et al POV to deprecate not accurately describe. The QW POV that is long demonstrated at Orthomolecular medicine Talk to not be science based at all, much less current medical science, despite vociferous claims of expertise or "mainstream" something. (Something, not science, the persistent, multivariable, multi-order of magnitude missed inputs assure that, where Pauling also cited the claimed replication, misinterpretation & lack of full range testing as "fraudulent" and the recent NIH & Hemila papers back up the basis of his point.)

Also I have added new content with good references, where editors really are intent on POV vandalism and deletion of the refs.--TheNautilus (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An outsider's suggestion here from a non-admin. Resting on any exception for exceeding 3RR is risky - you're likely to get blocked and have to explain your BLP argument in an unblock request to administrators, who are unlikely to be sympathetic if you're vowing to continue reverting. You're best off working through regular dispute resolution channels if it's not an emergency or a BLP violation that's clear to everyone. I was warned of that myself a while ago, and found that to be good advice. You want admins and fellow editors to be on your side, not think of you as a problem. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am trying to work collaboratively, with some editors this more difficult than others. The pseudosci issue with multiple BLP is quite serious and has been exhaustively discussed here before, including a very persistent former Vioxx lawyer that eats other lawyers, so I am quite sure of my grounds.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Sure, I'll get it at work on Sunday. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's attempt to follow Wikipedia policies

TheNautilus,

It's important for all of us to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a venue for researching and reporting the TRUTH. Instead, we rely on sources, preferably secondary or tertiary sources that have a reputation for fact-checking, following the guideline that if something hasn't been reported in such sources, it probably shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Your recent edits at Matthias Rath are, in my opinion, problematic. TAC's interpretation of the Cape High Court's ruling has been reported in multiple sources. That you disagree with TAC's interpretation and feel, based on your original research of primary documents, that you can craft a better description through synthesis, is irrelevant to what Wikipedia is all about. Similarly, your disagreement with TAC's charge that several people died as a result of using supplements and rejecting ARVS is misplaced. The relevant fact here is not how many people died or whether anyone died, but what has been reported. While you disagree with and change material taken from reliable sources, substituting your own knowledge or opinions, you also do not provide reliable sources for your own changes. Where are the second-hand reports for Rath as an inventor, for example? The sources given in the first sentence of the lead to establish Rath as a "physician..." refer to him only as a German businessman or entrepreneur.

I don't think we've ever interacted before, and I don't want a confrontation, only to improve this article to reflect what and who Rath is, verifiably, not the opinion you and I have of him. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the newspapers quoted selectively, and inaccurately, repeat fragments of the press release summary of TAC, a highly partisan group that has been linked to outside commercial funding, when flush from trial. The TAC derived newspaper accounts diverged from an accurate summary of the court's actual statements on a number of points. I've been busy and haven't bothered to iron these points out.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi

Sir Nautilus! Thanks for your ongoing efforts. I continue to be amazed at your stamina.

Hey, I just ran across an item that might interest you. I'm going to post the full text for you; feel free to remove this whole post, if you don't want it gumming up your talk page.

Warm Regards, Alan2012 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.psychiatry.org.il/upload/infocenter/info_images/5272008115357AM@Pages%20from%20IJP-45-1-2.pdf

Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci Vol 45 No. 1 (2008) 3-10

Vitamin Therapy in Schizophrenia

Leonard John Hoffer, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine

McGill University, Lady Davis Institute forMedical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

WP:COPYVIO removed - User:WLU

fyi, continued

I am sure you'll find this of interest:

This article is copyright 2008 International Schizophrenia Foundation http://www.orthomed.org/isf/isf.html and may not be reprinted or otherwise used without ISF's written permission. If you are interested in using or reprinting this article, please contact ISF at [e-mail] or write to International Schizophrenia Foundation, 16 Florence Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2N 1E9. Fax [phone].

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 5, 2009

WP:COPYVIO removed - User:WLU

Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Editor and contact person. Email: [e-mail] To Subscribe at no charge: http://www.orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan2012 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage is in a category

 Your userpage User:TheNautilus has a category, and so appears in Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution.
As the guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a colon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]].-DePiep (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]