User talk:ScienceFlyer

If you wish to discuss an article, I'd prefer discussion on the article talk page. Thanks!

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, ScienceFlyer! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! jps (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your work as you might see from the edits I thanked you for. Let me know if I can ever be of help. jps (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have undone my edit to the page web3 with a rationale that makes absolutely no sense (redundant...for what?) Elyna2734 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC) If you disagree with my contribution open a item in the talk page to enable discussion.[reply]

Ok, I explained my rationale. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zelenko

He not relinquished his Ukrainian citizenship, because emigrated in the Soviet time and NEVER got Ukrainian citizenship. In Ukraine not existing (and not existed) unrestricted jus soli Noel baran (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cassava

... is semi-protected now through August 7, which should allow a window to clean up some of the COI/POV editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for letting me know. ScienceFlyer (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am done now with basic cleanup-- just the first pass-- much more could be fixed there, and I haven't yet had time to read all sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Oz

Hi, the source for the claim that Oz was responsible for injecting puppies looks like this;

http://www.columbiacruelty.com/feat-pupkillings.asp

and the link to the letter on Waybackmachine looks like this;

http://www.columbiacruelty.com/letters/USDA1104.pdf

What they both have in common is http://www.columbiacruelty.com - google that - can you read Mandarin?

I spent over an hour searching for any legit source - there are none Mark^Dask 00:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Markdask Thanks- feel free to start a discussion, if desired. I saw that Columbia settled the concerns (for $2k) and there was no finding or admission of guilt. This was discussed years ago, according to the talk archives. ScienceFlyer (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edit of NCIIH

@User talk:ScienceFlyer In undoing my edits of NCIIH, you said "Remove needless and unsourced edits" All the edits made the article more accurate and were sourced. The NIH has 27 Institutes, Centers, and Offices. Why did you object to this correction? The article you restored is not neutral. As noted in the article talk:

== Criticism section?[edit] ==

Given that 90% of this article is listing criticisms, having a Criticism section seems redundant. Jimmy Wales said, "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article should reflect the Center as it exists today. Please propose how you to remove the current inaccuracy?
Thank you Bbachrac (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Neuroborreliosis

You reverted my edit on Neuroborreliosis. One subsection, that I deleted (Discredited treatments for neuroborreliosis include:) is not included in WP:MEDMOS. You also added the acronym LNB which is not cited. A google search of LNB does not return anything relating to Lyme Neuroborreliosis. Please refrain from editing this article unitl you know what you are doing.

Sneasel talk 16:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A PubMed search shows LNB is a common acronym for Lyme neuroborreliosis. This article needs work, but I didn't see any improvements, which is why I reverted it. Reliable sources have brought attention to discredited treatments. (See the citations plus, for example, box 2) I appreciate your efforts to improve this article, and recommend incorporating newer guidelines (North America, CDC Treatment, CDC/APHL testing recommendations, and France), and scientific reviews (See reports in Emerging Infectious Diseases, BMJ, and Nature). ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that WP:MEDMOS is only a suggested guideline; plenty of article deviate from it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open Forum Infectious Diseases has been accepted

Open Forum Infectious Diseases, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

==

Bokidam (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bokidam, what is the topic? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (for your reading pleasure). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Worobey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quesnel. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me with the article.

Thank you for helping me with the Himalaya Wellness article.

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I need guidance on how to handle someone who is intentionally butchering the edits to the articles I've written. An example is this user: Special:Contributions/49.37.249.99. They seem to be removing any content that portrays India in a less favorable light. What should I do in this situation? I'm a sporadic Wikipedia contributor, and I can't consistently monitor the pages I edit due to time constraints.

EDIT: I quickly compared what they have written against the articles they referenced, and there's a significant disparity (part of their edits are not even related to the Wikipedia article they're editing). Unfortunately, I can't do anything about it, as it takes considerably more effort to correct a broken edit than to write one from scratch.

Turk185 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mast cell activation syndrome

That thing needs attention from someone with journal access; it's a controversial diagnosis, and a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quackwatch as a source on AAEM

Hello, ScienceFlyer. We need to work out the issues with the current usage of "Quackwatch" as an attributed source on the article about the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. First, I have to cover what I take as a bit of a personal slight: your edit summaries thus far have been lacking greatly. "It's all fine" is not an argument, and consensus is built on the soundness of the arguments made. It's very hard to take your reverts seriously and in good faith when there is no sensible information in the edit summary.

So here I am to discuss with you directly.

The biggest issue I have with Quackwatch is that most of the site's content is simply Stephen Barrett's opinion. You are likely aware that QW has been extensively discussed. The consensus is that content from that site is almost always wp:SPS, and that articles by Barrett are often only his opinion. In this case, the linked article is merely Barrett's opinion that he "distrusts" this large list of groups.

I think I can accepts QW's point being in this "legitimacy" section (though maybe a retitle should be made at a later time). I think we would need stronger attribution (to Barrett, not just Quackwatch) and want the exact contention made actually in the article (for promotion of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity). I think the "29 of their doctors have had disciplinary actions against them" is like begging the question ("have you stopped beating your wife"). There's absolutely no context and appears to exist as information only to discredit, rather than inform. It should be removed per wp:pov. Finally, I don't know why you removed the sourced information that the AAEM is accredited to issue CME. That seems a very relevant counter-point to Barrett's "questionable" status.

So, I'd settle for this as a compromise:

Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch lists the American Academy of Environmental Medicine as a "questionable organization", and its certifying board, the American Board of Environmental Medicine, as "dubious" for promoting multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic candidiasis, and toxic mold syndrome.^[1]^[2] The AAEM is also not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties.^[3] However, the academy is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education.^[4]

I just noticed that the QW info is repeated in the lede, so that would be removed as well per wp:weight. Of concern for me, can we quote the ABMS as not approving something by inferring it from its absence in a list? Isn't that wp:synth?

^ Barrett, Stephen. "Questionable Organizations: An Overview". Quackwatch. Retrieved 20 Dec 2023.
^ Barrett, Stephen (23 November 2016). "Regulatory Actions against AAEM Members | Quackwatch". Quackwatch. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
^ "Specialties & Subspecialties". American Board of Medical Specialties. Archived from the original on 8 May 2012. Retrieved 17 May 2012.
^ "American Academy of Environmental Medicine". Archived from the original on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2013-02-18.

76.178.169.118 (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [Original message was unsigned. I have added the signature after the fact with the correct timestamp. diff:[1]][reply]

Will you please discuss? Give me a good faith effort to edit this section to be in better keeping with WP guidelines. Instead of a further revert, try a second edit. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave messages on the article talk pages rather than this personal talk page. ScienceFlyer (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

photo might need extra step of link?

Talk:Lyme disease#new photo

Hi, I think the photo of the Lyme patient might need an extra step of a link with underscores. Please compare to the photos regarding Capricorn One novels.

Since these are side-by-side photos, I’m using this as a potential model.

Capricorn One#Other media

Click on either photo, click on “More details,” and you’ll see the name in blue with underscores between the words. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! We’re in business! The key step seemed to be removing “thumb|upright . . . ”, a change which another Wiki member made.

I’m planning to first look at the 4 references given for the current photo and see if I can incorporate 1 or 2 of these in the article text.

Again, thanks for getting this rolling and for finding the photo you posted. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScienceFlyer: Hi, please think of me as a potential co-worker on medical issues. I think we worked reasonably well together on Lyme disease. And feel free to pop me a hello on other medical issues. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

We are not supposed to do WP:OR to get to the bottom of ongoing scientific controversies. if something is bullshit, then that's fine, we can cite authoritative sources that say it's bullshit, but none of the stuff that was being linked in that article looked like an authoritative source. It was just a bunch of random journal articles saying the thing worked for XYZ, and then a bunch of random journal articles saying the thing didn't work for JKL. If we can't say anything for sure either way, then the article should simply not have a tirade about the efficacy of the treatment in it. jp×g 🗯️ 23:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[qw-1] Barrett, Stephen. "Questionable Organizations: An Overview". Quackwatch. Retrieved 20 Dec 2023.

[aaem-actions-2] Barrett, Stephen (23 November 2016). "Regulatory Actions against AAEM Members | Quackwatch". Quackwatch. Retrieved 21 December 2023.

[3] "Specialties & Subspecialties". American Board of Medical Specialties. Archived from the original on 8 May 2012. Retrieved 17 May 2012.

[4] "American Academy of Environmental Medicine". Archived from the original on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2013-02-18.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]