User talk:Pez1103
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Pez1103, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Fyslee 20:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Warnings
I see you've made some changes to Morgellons that totally change the nature of the article, and make it seem as is Morgellons is a recognized disease. Can you justify these changes? Please discuss on the Morgellons discussion page. -- Herd of Swine 22:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please discuss your changes before you make them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- lucasbfr talk 22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
-
Please stop immediately. Your actions are violating many policies here and are very disruptive. -- Fyslee 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop. If you continue to remove legitimate warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 23:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edit to Morgellons
Your recent edit to Morgellons (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked for 24 hours
Hello, Pez. You have been blocked for a day due to your severe edit warring on Morgellons. Once you are unblocked, please contribute constructively by taking the issue at hand to the talk page — if someone reverts you, that means they disagree. When people disagree, the ordeal should be taken to the talk page of the article. In the meantime, if you serve your block in peace it will help you. If you have any questions, you are still able to edit your talk page. —this is messedrocker
(talk)
23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've semiprotected the article in question. Take disagreements to the talk page. It is by talking to people that disagreements are sorted out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is completely biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pez1103 (talk • contribs).
- Would you mind elaborating? —
this is messedrocker
(talk)
00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This article was written by a man who has an agenda -- to discredit Morgellons as a legitimate disease. I don't think that furthering a biased agenda is the goal of Wikipedia. The man who contributes to this page started an anti-morgellons website called morgellonswatch. The CDC is currently researching this newly emerging infectious disease. I would like to see this article completely revised or deleted.
The first paragraph for example, comments in caps.
Morgellons or Morgellons disease is a controversial name THE NAME OF THE DISEASE IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL (OPINION) for an alleged THE TONE OF THIS WORD HAS A NEG CONNOTATION polysymptomatic syndrome characterized ITS CHARACTERIZED BY MORE THAN THAT by patients finding fibers on their skin THEY FIND FIBERS COMING OUT FROM SORES, which they believe are related to other symptoms, including intense itching, skin lesions, as well as a wide range of other chronic symptoms. These symptoms are occasionally accompanied by the belief in an infestation by some unknown arthropod or parasite THIS STATEMENT SHOULD BE DELETED. The term Morgellons is not in accepted use by the medical community and the syndrome is widely held CAN YOU PROVE IT IS WIDELY HELD OR ONLY SOMETIMES DIAGNOSED AS by the medical community to be a type of delusional parasitosis. There is no agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment. Pressure from patients, including doctors and nurses who claim to have a host of difficult symptoms A HOST OF DIFFICULT SYMPTOMS OR THE DRAFT CASE DEFINITION FOR MORGELLONS DISEASE, resulted in a June 2006 statement from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it had begun organizing a committee for the purpose of investigating Morgellons to determine whether it exists. DID THE CDC SAY THAT THEY WERE INVESTIGATING IT DUE TO PRESSURE FROM PATIENTS? I DOUBT IT.
- Interesting point. That paragraph doesn't seem to cite any sources, so if you could provide any sources that say that Moregellons is a legitimate disease, etc, I'd be willing to clarify the first paragraph. —
this is messedrocker
(talk)
11:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
How about this as the first paragraph? It is more factual and unbiased.
Morgellons or Morgellons disease is the name of what may be a newly emerging infectious disease. There is not yet an agreed-upon physical cause, etiology, diagnostic criteria or proven treatment for this disease. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is preparing to conduct a full investigation. (NY TIMES, October 24, 2006)
Here are some doctors who agree that it is a real disease: "I think it's a real disease," said Dr. Rafael Stricker, a physician in San Francisco who sees many patients claiming to have Morgellons. "Certainly there is an element of psychiatric distress here, but that's because the patients are ill and nobody wants to listen to them," he said.Many patients also test positive for Lyme disease, Dr. Stricker has found; certain antibacterial and antiparasitic medications sometimes seem to alleviate the symptoms, he said." "I feel it's a parasite, perhaps a fungus," Dr. Uppal said. "You have to give patients the benefit of the doubt."(NY TIMES ARTICLE:October 24, 2006)
In the section on duval county, the Wikipedia fails to mention that the county only performed a "literature search." The county stated " [Studies]prove to be costly and require support from various medical specialists. DCHD does not currently have the resources to support such a study here in Jacksonville." Therefore, no actual research study was performed. This information is from footnote 7. http://cctvimedia.clearchannel.com/wtev/morg3.doc.
Information about preliminary research should be included in the article:
Preliminary Research Findings
Dr. Wymore of the Oklahoma State University recruited two Oklahoma State faculty physicians who tweezed fibers from beneath the skin of some Morgellons patients. The samples were sent to the Tulsa Police Department’s forensic laboratory. The police checked the samples against carpet and clothing fibers and other materials, and conducted chemical analyses and other tests, and found no matches against any fiber in their databases. However, the fibers taken from the Morgellons patients matched each other. [source http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06204/707970-85.stm]
Dr. Citovsky of SUNY Stonybrook has also conducted some preliminary research on Morgellons. Preliminary findings indicate that Agrobacterium was found in the cells of Morgellons patients and may be involved in the etiology and /or progression of Morgellons disease. Pathogenic Agrobacterium is known to produce cellulose fibers at infection sties within host tissues and is commonly used in biotechnology to genetically alter plants. Preliminary findings indicate that Agrobacterium was found in the cells of Morgellons patients. In a CNN interview, Dr. Citovsky stated, "when I look into the skin of these Morgellons patients, I see DNA from something that could only come from a plant." Agrobacterium may very well be the pathogen that distinguishes Morgellons disease. If these results are confirmed, it would be the first example of a plant-infecting bacterium playing a role in human disease. Dr. Citovsky has received numerous additional samples from Morgellons patients, but due to a lack of funding, cannot test these samples at this time. He has applied for a grant from the National Institute of Heath to perform this work. source http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/23/pzn.01.html
I also would like a section added on Randy Wymore who is one of the leading reserchers of this disease: “When I started looking into this, it wasn’t about treatment or figuring out what was causing this,” Wymore said. “It was really just to try and say: ‘Is there some evidence that there is a real disease here?’” He compared Morgellons fibers with everyday fibers he collected from clothes and department stores during a road trip with his family to California. Not one looked like the fibers festering out of and beneath the skin of Morgellons sufferers. Wymore is now convinced the condition is real. He said his fiber research should also silence critics who say Morgellons is a form of delusions in which patients believe parasites or bugs are attacking their skin. “Delusions of parasites is a purely psychiatric disorder,” Wymore said. “Morgellons is a physical pathology that happens to have some psychiatric effects.” Source: http://www.newsok.com/article/2853143
I think that the section MRF marred by contraversy should be deleted entirely. It is unnecessarily inflamatory. A couple people resigned. There is absolutely no proof of any inpropriety, yet the way it is worded makes that implication.
The symptoms section is inadequate/incomplete. It makes more sense to quote the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology.
Morgellons symptoms include skin lesions which can be anything from minor to disfiguring in their appearance, sensations of crawling and biting on and under the skin, and the appearance of fibers and granules coming out of the skin. According to statistics from the Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF), the majority (95%) of affected patients also report symptoms of disabling fatigue and self-described "brain fog" or problems with attention. Patients also report a high incidence (50%) of fibromyalgia, joint pain, and sleep disorders. Other symptoms include hair loss, decline in vision, neurological disorders and disintegration of teeth in the absence of caries or gingivitis. Most patients are unable to continue working, and those who are able to continue working report that they do not function optimally.
[edit] A few pointers
Pez, thank you for starting to use the talk page. We are here to work together, and it's always nice to have a good working relationship with other editors. Here are a few pointers:
- To make a proper signature, type four tildes like these ~~~~. It automatically produces your user name and the time of the edit. (This only applies to talk pages.)
- When you make edits in articles you should use edit summaries. There is a blank space designed for that at the bottom of the editing window.
- As to the introductory sentences (wikipedia doesn't use an "Introduction" section, but what is called a "lead." You can read about it here: WP:LEAD. The lead sums up the contents of the article, without anything more, different, or new. IOW the article must include the information in depth already,
- with good sources (WP:RS, WP:V). These are Wikipedia policies that must be understood before doing too much editing. With time you will get to understand them better.
- Also read about WP:NPOV.
- Another one is WP:NPA
I have now added a welcome message to your user talk page. It has some good stuff to check out. Good luck! -- Fyslee 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Pez - as was suggested above, can you please sign your edits, just type four tildes like these ~~~~. That will automatically be converted into your user name and a timestamp, like : Herd of Swine 23:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- you don't need to write ~~~~pez, just ~~~~ will insert the link to your username. Herd of Swine 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your new sandbox
Here is the link to your new sandbox: User:Pez1103/Sandbox. Just copy that link to wherever you want it, usually your user page. Have fun with it! -- Fyslee 00:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please Sign In
pez, please sign in, that way your comments will be marked with your user name, rather than your IP address. Also, it's somewhat impolite to edit your own comments after someone else has responded to them. Herd of Swine 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A modest proposal
I have left a question/request for you at Talk:Morgellons#A_promising_theory and am providing this helpful message on your talk page to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings stemming from you not noticing it. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Pez1103! I see that you've edited since I left another reply in the section listed above, but I assume you've missed them because I haven't seen anything, so I thought I'd drop you a friendly reminder here. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about -- I didn't state that ("you will not accept any scientific results that may contradict your personal beliefs"). It seems like you are trying to attack me personally. Why not drop it and let's just discuss the issues instead. Pez1103 19:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, when you finally answered my question (after trying to delete it) you stated "it would be impossible for the CDC to prove that Morg doesn't exist" and "If that was the determination, there is nothing to say that in the future, with advanced technology, they would be able to discover evidence that would prove it exists -- like finding the pathogen, for example". This seems to indicate that you're convinced that it does exist exactly as described and that because of your certainty, any scientific process that says "well, no, it doesn't appear to exist" must be inherently flawed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)