User talk:Avb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Please click here to leave me a new message

---

Archives 3 July 2006

Contents 1 RC patrol 2 Email 3 AVB? 4 Spring 5 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 6 Shaken baby syndrome 7 Shaken Baby 8 Prostatitis ext links 9 Concordia Newsletter 9.1 Help out now! 9.2 Decision Making 10 Thanks for the kind welcome. 11 True-believer syndrome 12 ID edit 13 Hi 14 Smith_Jones 15 Welcome to VandalProof! 16 Ampligen 17 email 18 Auto-reversion 19 CFS 20 Importat Warning 21 Speedy deletion of Detente bala 22 Editing of historical talk pages 23 Tainted Evidence? 24 Good job! 25 Levine2112 26 re:Talk:Stephen Barrett 27 Thanks again 28 He isn't worth it 29 Hey how about a deal? 30 Ryan St. Anne Scott 31 Improving CFS/ME Article 32 Barrett - "zealous advocate" again 33 I stand corrected.

[edit] RC patrol

Hi, I just noticed this revert - I think the user is correctly cleaning up a number of AfD tags after the AfD noms had been withdrawn. AvB ÷ talk 23:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay; thanks for pointing that out. I'll post a message on the user's talk page. Sorry about that. joturner 23:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 03:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, resent then. JoshuaZ 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AVB?

Are you an Anti Vandal Bot by any chance?--205.188.117.11 15:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

<smile> AvB ÷ talk 07:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spring

I was not experimenting with the Spring page, still thanks for looking after it.

Tim Blokdijk

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.132.92.234 (talk • contribs) .

I've removed the warning. I'm sorry I took your well-intended edit for an experiment. You can revert to your version if you want to, or discuss your change on the TA Spring talk page. AvB ÷ talk 07:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs List of major automobile races in France Merzario The W Rial (racing team) Decaydance Records Pascal Fabre Sonny Moore Somatization disorder François Hesnault Supreme Clientele Mike Beuttler Sakon Yamamoto Andy Townsend Adrián Campos Oscar Larrauri Tarso Marques Ironman (album) Christian Danner Fishscale

Cleanup Alex Rodriguez Scarab (constructor) Ejaculation Merge Maktoum Hasher Maktoum Al Maktoum Autistic community Nigga Add Sources Black people Philippe Alliot Tom DeLonge Wikify Mexican Revolution Paulinho Da Costa East Grand Rapids Public Schools Expand Method & Red Zebra Line-item veto

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaken baby syndrome

Thanks for restoring back the article to a properly footnoted system and including the additional edits. I was pretty annoyed after all my hard work fixing the citation/footnotes to have it reverted and the anon user instruct me on my talk page to leave the article alone. I had reverted back once (which was instantly re-reverted), but as I generally try to follow 1RR, I thought it then best to see if other editors might join in the discussion. Hopefully the additional comments by JDW on their talk page plus Alteripse and your involvement will help encourage the anon to accept there there are common approaches taken to citating, and of the need to work in collaboration with other editors rather than trying to "own" articles. David Ruben ^Talk 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

David Ruben has accused me of owning the Shaken Baby article. I was upset as to how he was restructuring the footnotes yesterday. I took great pains to keep them in a medical/scientific format and looking profesional. He was color coding and making the page look like a Christmas tree including the references. In addition, to adding extra junk into in the citations. I would not have objected to the change in reference listings, except the format and the information does not need to be changed. I tried to take out one of the color changes and totaly screwed up the references and reverted to an older page to keep the page from being screwed up.

I see that he has removed all of the references for Dr, Viera Scheibner, including a quote from her paper "All examples of what Caffey considered "typical battered baby" fractures and periosteal bleedings in his papers, are in fact typical scurvy fractures and bleedings." Her paper reviewed all of Caffey's papers and additional papers and studies. Caffey even has acknowledged that scurvy was found in his first six cases that had fractures and subdural hemotomas. Apparently he was not educated as to the signs of scurvy and did not attempt to educate himself. His ignorance concerning scurvy and others is no reason to delete this information that has been medically and scientificaly documented for for close to 90 years from this page. All the Shaken Baby Syndrome has been based on in Caffey's own words is a "theory" and "a variety of circumstances."

David also deleted the reference for the Ommaya study (1968)in conjunction with the US Department of Trnsporation. I posted a link to Pub Med and the citation for the journal article, as numerous scientic articles that are posted on line, for validation. He has also delected the "and lactose intolerance" for the 2nd time. Some one else put it back and he deleted again; this needs to be listed.

70.171.229.32 03:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaken Baby

Is there any way to ask David for the 2nd time not to change the format of the references? PLEASE I sent him the following note:

May I ask why you are changing the references and moving the years? Apparently you have no idea what the proper format is for medical and scientific refences. Other pages posted on Wikipedia have the correct format and the format that I posted. Why don't you go to the medical library or look at other medical papers available on the internet or the papers that I have posted to see the correct format.

Thank you 70.171.229.32 07:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My original attempt at editing the article was to move the non-associated full citations from the manually mantained reference section, to the coresponding points in the article where inline links occured. As far as I can tell, this did not involve removing any of the citations already present - see edit history. The only External link to move was that of (Oral 2003) which was placed in the Signs and symptoms section at its previous first mention as a Harvard link (anyway Harvard links are supposed to refer to an entry in a Reference section not an External link). On looking at the edit difference, in the Prevention section "lactose intolerance" indeed got accidentally left out of the displayed text, but only because it was placed inside the opening < ref > tag for its reference:

Hence had : <ref>"Lactose Intolerance," Better Health Channel, Victorian Government, Australia [http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Lactose_intolerance?OpenDocument "Lactose Intolerance"]</ref>

Instead of: Lactose Intolerance<ref>Better Health Channel, Victorian Government, Australia [http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/BHCV2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Lactose_intolerance?OpenDocument "Lactose Intolerance"]</ref>

As for correct location of years within a citation, Template:cite journal is not my creation, and other articles are not "incorrect" for using it. Please also see User talk:70.171.229.32 for some further comments I made. David Ruben ^Talk 00:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User 70.171.229.32 was editing in good faith but responded badly to being reverted and criticized. S/he complained to several (mostly uninvolved) users. I think JFW's response was rather appropriate. AvB ÷ talk 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostatitis ext links

I notice that you have edited the Prostatitis page previously. I have been engaged in a discussion on the external links with User:Skoppensboer at Talk:Prostatitis#Links removed and replaced. I would just appreciate another pair of eyes looking at the issues. I think I'm ready to back off on this, but I'm not sure if I should. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! -- Mwanner | Talk 01:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concordia Newsletter

NEWSLETTER

Concordia is currently trying to relaunch. I, and all the members of the ex-council, wish to welcome new members to the group. We are a group who aim to promote remaining civil, in an environment where messages can easily be interpretated wrongly.

[edit] Help out now!

• Try and help people remain civil! Talk to them, and help them in any way possible. Do not be afraid to use the talk page.
• Give people the Civility Barnstar.
• Make and spread some Wikitokens so people know there are people to help if they want assistance.
• Add banners or logos to your userpage to show your support.
• Suggest some ideas! Add 'em to the talk page.

We are a community, so can only work though community contributions and support. It's the helping that counts.

[edit] Decision Making

The council expired one month ago, but due to the current position of the group the current council will remain until the position of the group can be assessed, and whether it would be sensible to keep Concordia going. For most decisions, however, it will be decided by all who choose to partake in discussions. I am trying to relaunch because of the vast amounts of new members we have received, demonstrating that the aims are supported.

If you wish to opt of of further talk-page communications, just let us know here.

- Ian¹³/t 20:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC). Kindly delivered by MiszaBot.

[edit] Thanks for the kind welcome.

Hello Avb, thank you for the helpful notes left in my inbox. I'm brand new to the Wiki way, and really only intended to fix a few spelling mistakes. I've now read nearly every article on Wikipedia regarding best practices & rules, including those to which you linked. One funny thing: I've been notified by a bot that my edits are not being approved. It's frustrating (and understandable, if the bot tells truth) but I'd really like to contribute my fixes. What constitutes a "new user," and how is the next level attained? I'll keep reading in the meantime - if you respond then I'm grateful, and if not, c'est la vie. Once again thanks to you, and Happy New Year! DC

[edit] True-believer syndrome

Hi Avb! I've added something to your recent comments on crop circles as an indicator of true-believer syndrome. I was wondering what you thought ... Ottershrew 14:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID edit

Avb, nice catch on that last edit to the rendering of the broader discussion in the "Intelligent designer" subsection. ... Kenosis 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Thanks - my reply is here.Trishm 05:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smith_Jones

hi i wanted to speak to you about your rrevision of the Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About article. the citation needed tag did not beeed to be removd because acccoding to the guidleins for articles on a real people all mesaages like the 'Convicted felon' addition need to be cited in order to remain int he atirlce. Kevin Trudea's convicted felon status was no cited and we need ctiation for that. could you please come t to the talk page for article? Smith Jones 23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry didnt see a reply Smith Jones 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 09:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Avb! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ampligen

I'm wondering, since you seem to have read the Ampligen article, does it appear to be biased to you? Thedreamdied 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Answered at Thedreamdied. AvB ÷ talk 12:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] email

i sent you and email but id ont know if you received it Smith Jones 18:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had overlooked it in my in-box. Will write to you tonight. AvB ÷ talk 19:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto-reversion

Hi Avb, and thanks for the intro/welcome.

I'm unclear when I get off the auto-revert s**tlist. I made what I thought were cogent neutralizing edits to Royal_Rife, and they were bounced immediately. Can you shine some light on this?

And thanks for the linkage to all the intro resources.

Fredsagirl 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll try and pen a reply at Talk:Royal_Rife. 12:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFS

Yeah, I know you deleted your message on my talkpage but I'll chance a reply anyway (not on the Freudian slip though).

I've not worked on the CFS page for a while either, and I am fully aware of the fact that you play a large role in the online CFS commununity. The article presently suffers from some major problems. I'll offer you my views here, and perhaps we can come up with some form of framework to take this major topic to a new level.

• CFS is poorly defined. The systems that are in place (Oxford, Fukuda, Holmes, etc) are perceived as being inadequate.
• There is no gold standard in the diagnosis of CFS. The complete lack of a useful diagnostic modality makes it almost impossible to generate a clinically homogenous population for an intervention (or even "natural history" trial).
• There is a wide gap between what patients feel and what doctors can understand.
• There are various schools of thought as to the pathogenesis. Some favour a psychiatric paradigm, while others find explanations in virology, autoimmune disease, endocrine causes and toxicology. These schools of thought are not well-defined, with members of the "psychiatric school" not excluding an organic cause and vice versa. I personally find myself in agreement with a hybrid approach (mental maladaption to a physical cause), but remain open-minded as to new perspectives.
• There are a lot of people - probably too many - who claim they have found the cause of CFS (think of HHV6 and its incessant hype).

What the article needs is for its principal editors to agree that the above are real problems that need addressing. There is nobody who has the final word, and that includes Simon Wessely as far as I'm concerned. It will become a nice exercise in epistemology, but I'm not afraid of that. We also need to agree that WP:ATTRIB and WP:NPOV need to reign supreme in the CFS article.

I'm sorry to hear I was the one who drove you to despair initially. You didn't go into details, so I can't address this specific point. But it looks like our initiative is needed to turn the CFS article from a pile of unorganised POV junk into a shining light of Wiki quality. JFW | T@lk 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importat Warning

[edit] Speedy deletion of Detente bala

A tag has been placed on Detente bala, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

the article doesnt have enough informaiton and wourk best on wiktionary instead of wikipedia.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

[edit] Editing of historical talk pages

I think you're confused on exactly what the issue is. Those of us who were discussing something on the Talk page of the article were *not* discussing changing the article main page. We were discussing the template added to the historical talk page (in effect). Our comments, which were completely constructive in our own opinion, were wiped during active discussion. And a cadre of editors wants to try to force us not to talk on that page. That is not relevant to Consensus. Consensus did not dictate that no one can talk on a historical talk page, as far as I know. That is the issue. Can a person talk on a historical talk page. That's the sole issue. Wjhonson 23:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Refactored comment on your talk page. AvB ÷ talk 16:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tainted Evidence?

It is becoming quite disturbing just how much of Levine's "evidence" is, well, just plain incorrect. Shot info 23:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good job!

I'm very impressed how you can present your arguments without assumptions of bad faith. Thanks for showing alternatives to the constant harrassment and bickering too common in the Barrett-related articles. --Ronz 03:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levine2112

Hi AvB,

Thank you for your input, and though Levine2112 has not taken your advice well, which can be understandable considering you were also preparing a case against their evidence against Fyslee, I can see that you meant well. I suggest, that like myself, you disengage from trying to "advise" Levine2112, as this is likely to be poor use of time for the both of you.

Again thank you for your effort and good luck. Cheers Lethaniol 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Talk:Stephen Barrett

I think the discussion is getting out of hand. Let's try to keep the discussion about the article to it's talk page, and move discussions about individual editor's behavior to user talk or other venues. It might be helpful for you to remove or edit your comment about I'clast [1]. --Ronz 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You're so right. You wouldn't believe how neutral it looked when I wrote it though. :-D AvB ÷ talk 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again

I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up my mistake and so forth on Barrett's talk page. Also, I am a slow learner do to disabilities I have medically. I appreciate your help and patience with me. --Crohnie 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I think you're much more patient than I am. I'm disabled too and had to learn to appreciate what I had left in terms of memory, concentration and "up-time". As to learning to edit Wikipedia, I know from experience that it may be tedious at times and think you are doing a good job. AvB ÷ talk 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It sure is hard to learn everything here with a disability. I too have my down days and can't remember a thing. I try real hard though. This is one of the reasons I am trying to be an editor here, to help my learning and memory get better. Could be a lost cause, but I am trying! :) --Crohnie 12:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He isn't worth it

Hi AvB, probably time to let things go. Trying to stop these editors is just not worth it. Methinks he is just goading you into allowing you to say something "improper" so he can use it against you in some other imaginary context. Time to let the troll return to his bridge. Shot info 10:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. You're probably right but I think I've created an opportunity for him to show he's not a troll so I'm hedging my bets right now. AvB ÷ talk 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Shot info. Don't allow yourself to be baited. People seem to fall for baiting more often then not and it's really not worth the stress or the hassle of it all. I think what has been said proves without a doubt that back then it wasn't common for certifications. So lets see where the chips fall. --Crohnie 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey how about a deal?

When you see any of my bloopers you fix it and tell me about it so I know and hopefully don't repeat and I'll do the same! With both of us being disabled especially with memory issues (my memory problems is mostly do to lots of medications I have to take) and so forth, it never hurts to have someone keep an eye out. :) I personally appreciate any help I get from anyone, that includes spelling errors, links or what ever. Can you believe I actually got published a long time ago with my writings?! It seems like another life time though now. I can't even figure out how to put the little talk boxes on my user page, yet anyways, but I'm still going to work on it. You take care, I have to say I enjoy your writing style. You are very precise and do your homework. I hope we see each other around.  :) --Crohnie 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan St. Anne Scott

I noticed your comment on the talk page of this article. The source I used was the Chicago Tribune article that I referenced. I also have seen copies of articles from newspapers in the Twin Cities and in LaCrosse, Wisconsin from the mid-1990s that has similar information. I tried to be darn careful when I wrote that article NOT to put anything in it that wasn't backed up with a citation. If he thinks the newspaper article was libel, one would hope he would be suing the Chicago Tribune, because everything in the Wikipedia article is from the Tribune. --Bookworm857158367 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving CFS/ME Article

Hi, I've noticed you recently made a contribution or regularly contribute to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I recently nominated it as the Wikipedia:Improvement Drive. I feel that it needs urgent improvement, and if you agree please vote at the Improvement Drive project page. Thanks! Thedreamdied 02:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrett - "zealous advocate" again

I like what you did with the paragraph, but I agree with Arthur Rubin that we've got too much about NCAHF and their (stupid) legal stance. However, the current version is now in many ways worse than the original. I was thinking of reverting it back to before you started working on it, but thought I'd bring it up with you first.

Old version: A California court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Barrett's organization NCAHF that accused a homeopathic pharmaceutical company (defendant) of "false advertising" and "unfair business practices."[29] Plaintiffs presented no evidence, apart from the testimony of two expert witnesses, to prove any of the elements of their claims.[30] The court stated that by law, the testimony of both witnesses (Barrett and another member of the board of NCAHF) should be given little weight, because neither witness was qualified to testify as an expert on the issues raised. Plaintiffs mistakenly argued that the burden of proof should be on the defendant to prove that its products were safe. The court further stated that both witnesses were "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts".[30]

Current version: In 2001, Barrett testified before a California court as an expert witness in NCAHF v. King Bio. The court found that "Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications" in the area of "FDA treatment of homeopathic drugs" and indicated that his evidence in this area should be given little weight by law.[29] The court further stated that Barrett and a co-witness were "zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said" they "are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well."[29]

The current version doesn't have the clear context of both expert witnesses being NCAHF board members. Thoughts? --Ronz 16:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I stand corrected.

I had forgotten exactly what BLP specified regarding talk pages and thought things could be said there even if they shouldn't go into the articles. I stand corrected. -Aleta 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. Keep up the good work! AvB ÷ talk 01:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)