User talk:Sciencewatcher/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for working on the MCS article. It takes me a long time to go through the references, and I don't have a lot of time right now. It looks like you've also been busy dispelling urban legends on MSG and other pages. Keep up the good work! Cool Hand Luke 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Somebody has got to do it. Wikipedia articles are the first result on google for many illnesses, so it's important to make sure the information is factual. --Sciencewatcher 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

motherfucker, you forgot to "launder" aspartame page as well

your ugly mug should be stepped upon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.142.15 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

we gonna smoke your sorry shill ass from wiki

motherfucker.... just go die, retard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.142.15 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

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)

CFS

Hi, noticed you have edited on CFS would like comments on Neuroendocrinology edit and relevance of CDC findings, see discussion page Jagra

Minor edit

The "minor edit" marking was a mistake. I'm not thrilled with your edit summary that implies that I made a "misrepresentation". Could you explain what the problem is? JFW | T@lk 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to send you an email. Could you activate your email, or alternatively you may want to send me a message and not expose your email to abuse by your admirer above. JFW | T@lk 20:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a slightly more reliable source that demonstrates that Mirza thought she was allergic to water? JFW | T@lk 20:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That article does not state in so many words that she was allergic to water. I'd prefer if we stuck to the facts (that she was "unable to drink >4 liquid ounces of water", without insisting that there was a case of allergy). JFW | T@lk 21:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't whether she had a water allergy or not. Wilson does not state that she believed she was allergic to water. Wilson states that food and later water would give her an "allergic" reaction in the form of headaches. Those are Wilson's words, not Mirza's. Can we please settle for a version without "allergic" in it? JFW | T@lk 08:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher, please stop adding false information to this article. Guido den Broeder 08:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher and Guido, I support inclusion of the fact that Mirza was not drinking, but I will not support the claim that this was due to allergy, as per my reading of Wilson's account (which is probably the most accurate description of Mirza's case given that she was avoiding any other professional care). Please inform me whether this is acceptable. JFW | T@lk 10:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Taroaldo 18:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR I am letting you know that I have reported a violation at Wikipedia:Administrators' Notice Board/3RR. Thank you. --- Taroaldo 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It was actually you who broke the 3RR rule, apparently in an attempt to push your POV to the exclusion of all other viewpoints. --Sciencewatcher 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Still chewing on that after two days, huh? Tsk. --- Taroaldo 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No, just adding my response to my own talk page because it looked unbalanced having your message but no reply from me here. If anyone is interested that can look at your talk page to see the whole thing. --Sciencewatcher 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep. If a topic is started on my page I will continue it there and not double post unless the other person indicates they would like it. It's funny to read the talk pages with one-sided comments -- doesn't always make sense. Cheers. --- Taroaldo 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.