User talk:Yobol

Hello, Yobol! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - Eldereft (cont.) 02:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions in defence of wikipedia policy and against POV pushing. Verbal chat 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the message, but I would prefer next time that you ask for specifics before changing my edits - simply because I did not follow customary practices does not negate my reasons for the edit. I understand Undue Weight. My main argument is with argument placing, tone, style, and word usage. I have posted my reasons in detail in the Talk section under the POV section. Perhaps we can collaborate there. Fontevrault (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is an inappropriate use of your talk page, feel free to delete this in revision. I am trying to achieve a more efficient understanding of how Wikipedia works, or rather of why it works so well. I am a neurobiologist teaching a neurobiology of disease course at Brandeis University. I am deeply impressed with the accuracy of the content in this article, and well, frankly, of almost every article I have consulted (much more so in the realms of academic inquiry than popular culture, but that is not so hard to understand). This has gotten me interested in the process itself. The topic that brought me here (autism and the thimerisol controversy) is arguably one of the most subject to distortion and disinformation on the web. I am sure your own personal intellectual clarity (as well of course to that of the other editors) contributed to the quality of the article. But that is not what surprises me. Why are the crazies (if I may short-cut with this characterization) unable to subvert this content? I am not really interested in the answer with respect to this article, but more globally. (I realize that perhaps if I studied the Wikki culture as embodied in the many help pages etc. I might figure this out in time, but I am hoping for a quicker pointer as a help in the mean time). I do not find it shocking that some articles are to the point and accurate. I find it shocking that virtually all of the articles I consult are. This suggest the editing policies are remarkably resilient and efficient. I am curious as to your view of which policies contribute most to this state of affairs.

feel free to delete this and answer via email ([email protected]) and of course I realize you may not have time to answer in any event. But I appreciate any help you can provide.

best,

Sacha

Sachanelson (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that being bold is one of the tenets, but there is a line between being bold, and unilaterally making decisions to do things that are not warranted. If you have a problem with the page, why not try to fix it instead of deleting it? Joshua Ingram 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this to a redirect, eliminating the imported material, because Conservapedia's licence terms are not free enough—they reserve the right to revoke their licence, making it impossible to assert (the irrevocable) CC-BY-SA 3.0 in good faith. Please see this article's talk page for details. TheFeds 02:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Vaccine_controversy has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vaccine_controversy and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Sebastian Garth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance by mediator[edit]

Hi Yobol. I am willing to mediate this case. If you are ready to proceed, let's begin on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New approach[edit]

I've asked some questions in a new section of this title. Would you be able to respond? Sunray (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close[edit]

I'm not sure whether you saw my note on the mediation talk page, but I am proposing to close the mediation. However, there are some conditions under which we could continue. Any comments? Sunray (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept that I am editing in good faith. I am a supporter of vaccines and completely against homoeopathy and other unscientific mumbo jumbo. Looking at your edit history, I doubt you are working for industry, but seem more motivated by a concern for the defence of science. I am a brother in arms in this sphere, but I also have concerns about corporations whitewashing products in the face of persistent and justifiable scientific concerns about safety. Even if a chemical only affects a small % of consumers, this needs to be acknowledged. TickleMeister (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you've reordered the chronology of the subject's career and removed a citation needed tag for an assertion about what he is best known for. You also undid grammatical improvements and clarifications.

The subsequent changes you made look pretty good to me. Can you help reorder the body so it is chronological and the AIDS sections are grouped together? This seems to make the most sense and to be standard. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. 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. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user has commented on your position here [1] stating "some external editors progressively changed their position as they received more information". Wondering if you could clarify your position at the RfC [2] Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for getting involved in the controversial discussion at Transcendental Meditation. Few would wade into such a heated and draw out discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this [3]. I read that as the NPOV Noticeboard, not the NPOV article. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NP, happens to everyone. Yobol (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Thiomersal controversy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thiomersal controversy for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Aaron north (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently commented on a talk page to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. Proposal 5 attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN466 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yobol, it has occurred to me that I have been acting rashly towards your work on the Weston Price article for irrational reasons (probably tied to larger fiasco I've been too involved in recently). My attitude is not deserved and I apologize for it. I'm going to make a concerted effort to work in a collegiate, respectful and thoughtful manner. You don't have to respond even but I wanted you to know that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following the developments on the talk page. Reading about dentists is more fun than visiting them, but it's still not my main focus. If there's a particular issue where I can bring my experience or give a policy opinion, I can do that. But if you want to solve all of the problems, or even diagnose the problems, then that's more than I'm up for. I suggest reading about dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have done good work bringing sources to light (as has Bruce, I think), but you did miss a critical one. http://www.drcat.org/articles_interviews/html/rootcanal.html Just read it, you'll thank me. The middle is where it really picks up. Ocaasi (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke, if you didn't get to it yet. This is actually a nice overview of the situation from an Australian dental website http://www.shdc.com.au/Root-Canal-Treatment.html#5. Ocaasi (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, I've read it (and others), it's amazing what's presented as medical facts on the internet. I agree that Bruce has done a good job finding sources on Price (in general) and he has good intentions. I just think his approach to this one issue is incorrect, and I suspect he's very much like me - very stubborn once something gets into his head. Yobol (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Ludwigs in your recent edit comment, was that in reference to a discussion somewhere about an 'overexuberant reviewer'? If so, can you point me to it... thx Ocaasi (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was from Ludwigs2's edit comments dated 11/1. He removed several comments like that. Yobol (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never new at an human-rubber was! Now I know... How do you define a "reliable source"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V0db (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fine then, i made a mistake thanksf or reverting it User:Smith Jones 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Np, just trying to keep it from being cluttered. Yobol (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I think that's a clear improvement in sourcing. The old source was bugging me, because it was clearly so far below where the bar should be for an encyclopedia. Thanks for improving it, and more generally for your diligent and constructive editing across numerous articles. MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words, unfortunately these medical fringe articles are too full of them. Oh well, I guess that just gives me something to look forward to working on after I get through with these laetrile articles. :) Yobol (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.251.228 (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the proper link, and yes, we're considering a community ban of this anti-fluoridation fanatic who is giving their cause a very bad name. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done pulling up that stuff. You might find that IP editors editing history fascinating, just saying.... Thanks for all of your hard work. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone really surprised that one form of denialism flows so easily into others? Yobol (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, indeed, though it is quite a list... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In for a penny...Yobol (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Happy editing! Zachlipton (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably holding a conversation with a sockpuppet at Talk:Water fluoridation. Almost every unregistered or newly registered editor there is trying to weasel a conversation as a route to validation. The risks associated with water fluoridation is just not a theme that engages many serious people. I am not sure, but the pattern is familiar. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it looks like GeneralMandrakeRipper and his merry band, but I try to follow WP:AGF as much as possible. I see no harm in pointing out relevant policies in the chance this is an actual new editor, but I do not plan on having protracted discussions with them either. Thanks for the heads up though. Yobol (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured. I feel the same way, i.e. that some advice or reminders of guidelines would be useful to communicate. I have tried many times because these are not intrinsically stupid people, but I have kind of given up because there is no conversation. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit, how does my addition contradic fluoride as a cavity prevent? "A study has show the reason for cavity prevention is not due to fluoride hardening tooth enamel, rather fluoride is acting to reduce bacterial adhesion to teeth. ^[1]" I read through the what is a good source, why is this a bad source? I also stated that a source, as to not imply that this has been studied to death. It seemed like recent enough information since there hasn't been a good proposed reason for how flouride prevents cavities.Hardkhora (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update (some further research): I get that finding evidence can be hard because there is a bunch of oppinion and-or unhelpful science, aka junk science but from my research is that the mechanism of cavity prevent has changed some over time, such as the idea that as a baby if you take it in it will help create stronger teeth. Some sources that I went through.

I can find a lot of sources that make the claim fluoride hardens enamel but only at the surface level when applied topically: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192485&resultClick=3 . http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm . http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=331502&resultClick=3 . http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/toothdecay.html . http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=266513&resultClick=3 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10553252 . http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/325151 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23712030 . http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b155e571-be97-4754-adf4-d9ea435b3a05%40sessionmgr115&vid=3&hid=112 . http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=417ee6cb-6664-42f8-b92c-360150f98d8f%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=103&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZXM%3d#db=ddh&AN=36525036 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7497353 . http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=bb7ca822-0f1c-40e0-915a-b93cc4698cfa%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=103&bdata=Jmxhbmc9ZXM%3d .

As an example of unhelpful talk: http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question01.html http://"fluoridealert".org/issues/caries/topical_systemic/ Talks about the main prevention method being topical

Some other sources: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-3/5.htm Disagrees but says "No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention."

http://teethgeek.com/mechanisms-of-fluoride-in-caries-prevention/ Brings up modern questions, but doesn't make any claims.

While none of these show directly what my other source claims, it seems reasonable to infer that there haven't been new studies to confirm the claims or deny them.

I realize now I should have made it clear with the words: "the main cavity fighting benifit is claimed to be..." because like I said this is one source but I can find countless sources that project or hypothosis the mechinsism for cavity prevent. The idea is that some combintion of efects are preventing tooth decay but it seems like a lot of data but not a lot of conclusion on the main cause. The point being my source doesn't say that it doesn't harden enamal rather they found another mechanism that prevents cavities. Thinking now, would it be better to say that: "a source claims flouride aslo acts to keep tooth decaying bactria off teeth by making it harder for them to stay attached to teeth"?Hardkhora (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would take this to the article talk page, but I'm not sure that the sources above support the text change that the mineralization hypothesis is incorrect. My suggestion is to take this to the article talk page, with specific recommendations for the changes you want to make and the source you wish to source that change to. Yobol (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi buddy. We are men of ilustration and enlightening. So, I'm still very surprised that you keep on erasing my contributions about AIDS Denialism. Your argument of "Neutrality laxness" seems to me nonesensed at all. In any paragraph I wrote is a sentence which contains a personal opinion or a subjective issue. I've just added the most recent news about this aspect. Is this wrong??

I'll remind you, just in case, what I did. I changed some terms and words used in the article, which seems to me pejorative and subjective. I added a most recent list of Nobel Awarded AIDS denialists and the updated point of view of Dr. Montagnier's theory about AIDS, which amazed both dissidents and officialists. What's wrong about that?? Moreover, I wrote the full diagnose of death of Christine Maggiore (hallmark AIDS pneumonia...) for enhancing the fact that she, paradoxically, died of AIDS, so...

Even if there might have been mistakes in the editing: Is that a reason for fully erasing my contributions?? If you do think my editing is not neutral: why, instead of erasing it and leaving the article in his original state (and believe me, mate, is nor neutral or updated at all), didn't you just make the corrections so it can look more neutral and clear?? Wouldn't be that more fittable for Wikipedia's mission??

Anyway, inverse psychology is more than usual. You don't need to be Karl Jung for knowing that neither Sigmund Freud. Perhaps that article, in its original form, does reflect someone's opinion and by accusing me of Neutrality Laxness, actually you are defending someone's vision. Hope I'm fully mistaken with this.

Hoping we can achieve enlightening, neutral enlightening, greets you kindly: Milikguay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milikguay (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I do not fully comprehend what you are trying to get across here, but from what I can see, you believe your edits qualify as neutral. I disagree, and would like you to take your proposed edits to the talk page of said article where it can be discussed at length there with the rest of the community. Yobol (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. That's exactly what I'm proposing, man. Adding new important information, that's all!! Milikguay (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not my intent to start an edit war, just wasn't sure if you knew why I was removing it in first place

Will be over to talk page later, but thought should clear the air :) Egg Centric (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see? Apparently you're my sockpuppet. Or the other way around. We should give each other barnstars! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. No, no, I'm definitely the sockpuppet. I don't even have a user page or a fancy sig like you - that's the dead giveaway. And how does he know this isn't our...er, my...real name? Yobol (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should edit that page more often so I could be a sockpuppet too, as I like both your editing, and, well I just want to be like you guys.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more the merrier! And don't sell your contributions short, either. You do lots of good work, too, just keep it up. :) Yobol (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be the bad cop sockpuppet account, I like to swear. Who wants to be good cop, and who wants to be indifferent cop? Also, we should occasionally !vote against each other in AFD and other discussions so our sockpuppeting is more subtle. Now, I'm the deletionist account, so we should write down who is an inclusionist.

Incidentally, do we remember why we took that long break between July, 2007 and January, 2009? Did we forget the password for the Yobol account? And I didn't realize we were so interested in animal cognition, since I spent most of my time (with this account) bashing mediocre fantasy authors. Frankly I don't know how we segregated our contributions that well, now I can't remember what's my account for criticizing poorly-done science versus badly-written derivative trash versus...I don't even remember what my Dbrodbeck account was for.

Damn, this sockpuppeting thing is hard work. Way, way harder than just digging up sources to substantiate points. Hardly seems worth it really. And we should really pick a pronoun for us, I'm having a hard time telling if I'm a hive entity, confused individual or a royal personage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we err I or (man this is hard to keep straight) invented this account because we all like hockey, video games, and psychology so much.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! I call "indifferent cop" for this account. We're too lazy to be good. Now that we've been "caught", can we claim "split personality" as a defense? Apparently when we're on this account, we have an unhealthy fascination with vaccination. The Dbrodbeck account seems much more fun, need to spend more time on that. (Yeah, I'm thinking royal we is the way to go). Yobol (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know if you spell dbrodbeck backwards you get Lobby, oh wait.... The dbrodbeck account got a flu shot this year and asked the MD if he would get autism, just for fun. OK, the dbrodbeck account should be the good cop I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely time... it's been awhile now since I retired my bad-hand sockpuppet account. :P MastCell ^Talk 04:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, this sockpersonality hates hockey. Can we keep that straight? I did get a flu shot though. Yobol, looks like you are the only personality that didn't, so you might have to get H1N1 from some tainted pork and die. Don't worry, you'll be resurrected as Boyol, a smart-talking hermaphrodite with super-powers. One thing will be helpful, I think all personalities are Canadian.

Sigh. I miss OrangeMarlin. Always made my civility look good in comparison. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah...Canadian...anhwho, I always marvel at the civility you guys have to the patience to show with all the nonsense you have to put up with. As my watchlist has grown, so has the number of times I just want to reach through the screen and smack some sense into people. I think I might have some anger management issues - I blame the fluoride in the water. :| Yobol (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you're not talking about OrangeMarlin...it definitely helps when you consistently win every single battle a POV-pushing douchebag. I personally find writing FAQs for fringe pages quite satisfying. Also helps to take a break now and again.

But really, the best medicine is having all the right sources. Any moron can argue with an editor, but none can argue with a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to break into your wonderful conversation, but I just found that last sentence hilarious. Oh, if only that were true :) NW (Talk) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me it comes with my job. I teach intro psych now and then and have to deal with many claims of the paranormal. A student once claimed to have been cured of her addiction to nicotine by hypnosis. I explained that the success rate of that therapy was the same as cold turkey. She got quite upset. Eventually she dropped the class... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ - now there's a good idea. I can think of a couple of pages loaded with SPAs that would benefit from one... I hear ya about the sources though. One thing I was consistently marveled at was User:Eubulides and the way he would calmly deal with POV pushers by just throwing RS after MEDRS at them. Too bad he hasn't been around in a while...Yobol (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hoping that Eub is editing as a sockpuppet somewhere. S/he was indeed a fantastic editor and it was a terrible loss when s/he left. Hope springs eternal though - have you ever met User:TimVickers or User:SandyGeorgia? They are my gold standards for civil editing. However, any account that has access to a decent journal library is usually a happy, smackdown-enabled account. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't run into them much from my little corner of Wikipedia, though from what I've seen they are excellent contributors. Some good people to emulate - User:MastCell and User:2over0 and others also very good at dealing with POV pushers civilly. Need more of their like and less of the POV pushers - not only do the POV pushers not add anything to the encyclopedia, I'm sure they eventually wear down and drive away the good editors in the bargain. Yobol (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV and SG are extremely prolific and great at responding to questions (TV is usually a great source for article reprints too). You've only 2100 edits and are coming in at a time when editing in general on wikipedia seems to be slowing down considerably, if you spend enough time here you'll probably see them. Mastcell and 2over0 I've interacted with a fair number of times, both are excellent in my experience.

You might be interested in WP:CPUSH. Unfortunately it hasn't reached level of even a guideline and would be impractical to implement, but usually the community can sniff out a POV pusher on AN or ANI without much problem. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geeeeez, I just heard my name here-- a year too late! My, how things change-- now the place is such a circus they routinely haul me off to ANI, and folks like TV and MC are dropping like flies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to my job I can get pretty much any journal article, if anyone ever needs one just drop me a line. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if Dbrodbeck isn't around, feel free to drop me a line. NW (Talk) 02:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offers, I have access through my job as well. I wish I were as confident at the community being able to deal with POV warriors as WLU...we've had numerous SPAs at the aspartame group of articles being an enormous time sink for months now with no end in sight, despite accusations of shilling for Big Pharma, etc. ANI has been absolutely worthless in this regard. Ah well, I guess being accused as part of a conspiracy on the talk page may just mean someone's doing something right in keeping the conspiracy-mongering off the real article... :D Yobol (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've three offers to give me sources. It's a race to see who can find this one the fastest. GO!

Actually, I'm not sure how hard this will be to find. If anyone can find it, let me know and I'll send you an e-mail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am having trouble getting it while at home, so I have emailed the University Librarian to get it for me, hurry up Ken (for that is his name) I want to win this .... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your prize is to damned with faint praise. I'm planning on "my, yes, what an adequate job." Not even an exclamation point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My institution doesn't have a subscription to that journal either...sounds like a real gem. Go go gadget librarian!Yobol (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a subscription, but there is a problem with the Wiley database at our end right now, as soon as I get it, I will pass it on. Ken is working on it, well actually I think he is at a hockey game right now as it is Friday night, but, he knows about it.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned here, thought you should know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Again.2C_at_aspartame_controversy Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh. First time someone mentioned me on ANI, WP:BOOMERANG was invoked and they were warned. 2nd time, they were community banned, and now 3rd time has a block associated. Sadly, I doubt this will have any effect on people's tendency to invoke a food industry conspiracy here on Wikipedia. I must say, the block did restore some of my confidence in Wikipedia, though... Yobol (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same reaction here yeah. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know: I plan to remove clear talk page violations from the AIDS denialism page. After being away from Wikipedia since August, I'm amazed that certain denialist agenda editors continue to waste so much of your (and everyone's) valuable time with fruitless debate. Please object and discuss if you disagree with my position, but I strongly oppose the abuse of Wikipedia as a publicity tool for extreme fringe ideas and feel that a hard line on violations is warranted. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. About time we do something more constructive than beat our head against that POV wall over and over again...Yobol (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ANI regarding edit warring, meatpuppetry, etc. The discussion is about the topic Aspartame controversy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortale (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Located here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably guess what the merits of the complaint are without even looking at it! Egg Centric (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's true of any given AN/I complaint. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good times. Short of topic bans, I don't foresee this disruption ending in this article. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A block and some warnings have been issued. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is hope for an end to the constant yammering? Yobol (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the subjects you edit in, not a hope in hell. You're going to be fighting wilful ignorance till you die or stop editing. Maybe the precise nature of the woo will change, and the next great killer is, I dunno, LEDs or something, but the woo ain't going away. Sorry! Egg Centric (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just had to stomp out those embers of hope, didn't you? Yobol (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance is infinite, while patience is not. Ultimately, you will lose patience with the unchecked flow of ignorance, at which point you'll be blocked for incivility. The goal is to accomplish as much as possible before that inevitability comes to pass. MastCell ^Talk 04:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So many optimists around here. :) Yobol (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the talk page for Leukemia and would like to hear your interpretation of the sources I have provided and particularly how it constitutes undue weight.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with your removal of the rest of BruceGrubb recent edits. I find this all very frustrating. Note the new comments at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#MEDRS_and_Weston_Price_biography and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_Focal_infection_theory. He appears to have great difficulty understanding and applying WP:DR, WP:CON, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, etc, but I think some sort of response would be helpful, especially at NPOVN, where no one else has responded yet. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, he has a bad habit of not notifying the respective talk pages/editors about these noticeboard postings. Responded to NPOVN, looks like others have already responded at RSN. This is all very tedious. Yobol (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you told me to ask if I had questions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Synethos And well since you're the only one I know here. I decided to do so :P

How do I add (legal) pictures? As I want to add one to this article; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_of_shapes Preferably from here: http://coates.ma.ic.ac.uk/fanosearch/ But I'm not sure if I can, etc.

Thanks, --Synethos (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any experience adding images, but guidelines/policies that would be helpful are likely WP:Images, WP:Picture tutorial, WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. Hope that helps! Yobol (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started the conversation here: Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Altmed scope?. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already responded. Yobol (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I encouraged Bruce, seriously, to publish his research independently. It's really good stuff, interesting perspective, completely OR. Basically, the issue is that he's using sources which are ancient. They may not be purely primaries, but if this was a medical article, they wouldn't even be looked at they are so old. I think anything from before 1980 should be considered a historical source requiring his original research to determine its current relevance and significance. Of course there is not HISTRS, like MEDRS, but maybe that will help. Or give me the exact problem with his edits (I think it's synthesis from old sources), and I'll look around for a clearer explanation. Ocaasi (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same old synthesis problem. He's actually found a couple of good new sources, but continues to try to synthesize material to fit some preconceived notion about Price which I can't explain. That, in addition to his tendency to post walls of quotes, makes discussing anything with him beyond tedious. He should try to get it published; at least then we'd be able to use it as a source. But I'm finding it tedious to wade through his same old arguments over and over again; any nudge to ask him to stop the coatracking of FIT in the Price article would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weston_Price.2C_NPOV.2C_and_MEDRS regarding an issue with which you are involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs) 09:57, 23 February 2011

I'm thinking it's time for an RFC/U. Think it over for a day or two: they take a while to draft, and you'll want to have it procedurally wikilawyer-proof as soon as it goes live. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never been a part of one nor even seen one done. I guess I'll see how he reacts to outside input before doing anything that would eat up my time, which is in short supply on here anyways. Yobol (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you're doing. And ignore all that civility bullshit. It's better to be right, backed by evidence, than cave into the whining of the pseudoscience and junk medicine pushing crowd. IMHO.  :) LeftCoastMan (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but ignoring civility would get me kicked off of here fairly quickly given the controversial areas I tend to edit in. Just trying to make Wikipedia better one edit at a time. :) Yobol (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aids denialism. my question is 'what's the deal there'? can you answer or does the article actually.. is there fatty foods make you fat denialism? ya know-- why holocaust denialism exists I can get my head around a little bit. does that make sense?

I will look at the article closely & follow up if I am still not sure. S*K*A*K*K 16:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not sure I understand your question. If you are asking me why people believe in such a thing, the psychology behind it is largely outside my area of expertise, but Michael Specter's book "Denialism" may be a good place to start (haven't read it, but was recommended to me). Yobol (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol,
I was wondering why the scientific journal of the study took by Dr. Doreen Granpeesheh at the Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD), who reported cases of recovered children, cannot be added as a source in the article.
Thanks for your time.
ATC ^{. Talk} 03:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 main reasons why I thought the review was more appropriate. First, the lead of the article should summarize the information in the article; it would therefore be unusual to use new sources in the lead that are not in the body of the article. Second, the preferred type of sources for medical claims (see WP:MEDRS) are secondary reviews. The article you cite is a primary study, and therefore not a preferred source. Yobol (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Further_reading_removal_again. Older sources are often useful reading. Do you have a better source than World Oilseeds for the chemistry of coconut oil? Do you have a better work on the late XXth century history of processing in 3rd world countries than Grimwood? --Bejnar (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not. Thank you for the notice, I will respond there. Yobol (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol, I just started an article for the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, which actually preceded the Weston A. Price Foundation significantly. If you want to stop in and help out with sourcing, or check its descriptions, that would be great. I think the FIT situation is at least moving a bit in a better direction, although there are bigger differences about how to treat sources (and which sources to treat). Anyway, cheers, Ocaasi ^c 08:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually surprised when I didn't see this article when I first editing the Weston Price article; I'll try to get to it when I can, but real life has kept my time on here short, and I've had a few articles I've been wanting to update on the back burner recently. Interestingly, one of them is the organic food article and the nutritional qualities of organic v. conventional foods which should tie in to the Price Pottenger article as well (already updated the safety section of organic food recently). Yobol (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sequence of edits was initiated by the removal (with no discussion of the type you recommend) of a minor edit I made in two places in the article. My attempt to compromise by accepting the other contributor's stated point for the edit was met by its removal again by the other editor. I then responded by tagging the article as POV, since it does not present a balanced and neutral view of Dr. Duesberg's views, and added my reasons to the Discussion page. So please clarify what your objection is. Thanks.Roberterubin (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reverting and re-adding information that is objected to, discuss on the talk page. There is almost never a reason to revert more than 3 times in a day, and you will be blocked if you do so. Yobol (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the policy applies to the other editor as well, and to you also. You'll note that the only initial objection mentioned to my two edits had to do with my insertion of "majority", and I subsequently removed that. But the first edit, referring to Kary Mullis' support of Duesberg, was also removed. It was only after three of these had been done, that the other editor posted his rationale on the Discussion page. By the way, I do not believe Professor Duesberg is correct, but I do believe an article stating his views should not be contaminated by bias, which this one surely is.Roberterubin (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the warning was given to you as you seem to be an unexperienced editor based on your edit count, and I wanted to explain this bright line policy as well as prevent you from doing something that could get you blocked. Any further discussion about the Duesburg hypothesis article should take place at the article talk page, and not here. Yobol (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This editor has about as many edits to the talk page of the Duesberg article as he does to that case page. Yobol (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU it is impolite and a bit dubious to leave cryptic notes like this. It opens the door to speculation that you and Yobol are surreptitiously co-ordinating your actions. I would request that if you talk about me in the future you do so clearly and plainly out in the open. Thanks. Lambanog (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to do it surreptitiously, I would have used e-mail. This is the kind of brief, neutral note to interested parties that is supported by WP:CANVAS. You may read it as cryptic, I'm simply not bothering to include details when they are all on your talk page.

Claiming this is some sort of sneaky, behind the scenes dealing is absurd considering it's on a talk page, and all I'm doing is pointing two (the other party is Ocaasi, but I'm sure you already knew that) interested parties towards my notice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't know that until you told me on the other page. It's an improvement WLU, please keep it up. Lambanog (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and you could have asked me this question on my talk page instead of cluttering up Yobol's. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, I was thinking the same thing. Responded there. Yobol (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I were across this stuff a bit better. What do these people think? Do they imagine there isn't an autism researcher who wouldn't sell his soul for a cure? Grrrrrrr! Sorry. Just had to vent. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very wise Wikipedian once made an incisive and apropos comment here on this page. How do you get into the mind of a denialist to figure out what they're thinking ("Of course the WHO, FDA, CDC, National Academies of Sciences, etc. etc. are in on the conspiracy to prevent the spread THE TRUTH(tm) about thimerosal!")? Yobol (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was great. Thanks :) I'm thinking of asking him if he believes the Queen is a lizard. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHUN is starting to look like a real good idea, btw. They'll probably leave soon if everyone stopped paying so much attention to them. Yobol (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a decent article on that very subject by Chris Mooney: [4] NW (Talk) 23:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome Ward20 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to use one of the lines that I use on student essays that are confusing "I know what those words mean, but not in that order" but thought the better of it... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good one. I was about to make a snarky comment but I thought better of it too. What's interesting is that the paragraph appears grammatically correct (nouns, verbs, etc in the right order) and yet it still makes no sense. Hopefully they'll reply so we can get a translation. Yobol (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should consider the possibility that you're interacting with computer-generated text; see Mark V Shaney. I've actually considered building software which would programatically create realistic-sounding Wikipedia talk-page posts, for the lulz. The simplest approach would be to use a relevant context-free grammar combined with a random-number generator, a la SCIgen (a program which generates scientific papers, some of which have been unwittingly accepted for presentation at various meetings). Slightly more complex, but also more interesting, would be to use an order-k Markov chain, a la Mark V Shaney.

This latter approach would work like this: you have a bot download - let's say - the 500 busiest talk pages on Wikipedia and parse them to construct the Markov model. Then, you use the model to construct realistic-sounding posts. Given a sufficiently large training text, you can get surprisingly good results - for instance, an order-8 Markov model trained on the King James Bible can produce impressively biblical output. The output is often along the lines of "grammatically correct but makes little sense", but given the baseline level of sense evident on Wikipedia talk pages, it would be interesting to see if such probabilistically-generated posts stood out in any way from background. Anyhow, just a thought. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say we do it and write a paper, heck, I was thinking of applying for promotion next year... In all seriousness, that is really cool. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this reminded me a lot of the Automatic Complaint-Letter Generator I've seen plague multiple forums on the interwebs. I think that experiment would probably fool people for a while, which is an indictment of the level of real discussion that takes place on article talk pages...Yobol (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been partial to the Postmodern Essay Generator [5] Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, couldn't tell the difference. Yobol (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of this. Dbrodbeck, if you're serious, I am (half-)serious as well, although I suspect that time spent on this endeavor will actually work against real-life promotion in my case. :P The cool thing about a Markov model is that it could be dynamically "taught" by feeding it relevant texts, which is way neater than a MadLibs-expansion-type approach used by the Complaint Letter Generator et al. The model would be fairly easy to construct. The biggest technical hurdle for me would be parsing talk pages - for instance, I'm not good enough with regular expressions to figure out the best way to remove signatures from talk pages. It's possible someone else already has a solution, though, or there are various hacks to get around it. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too am half serious... It might be a fun project. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know you're a nerd when you find this insightful, funny, and had an idea this might be a good teaching tool for your students... Thanks for introducing me to that site, now I have more places to kill with my time. Yobol (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have that comic on my door at the University.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

xkcd is the gift that keeps on giving. You might want to add this one to your didactic material, although this is my personal favorite. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the time has come to remove the banners. All of the advocacy problems seem to be cleared up, and there are quite a lot of sources for an article this size. Not surprisingly at least one editor disagrees and at least one agrees with me. I am attempting to build a consensus within the sometimes hostile environment over there and it has been trying. I must admit I have not kept as cool a head as I should. Any input you may have would be appreciated. Colincbn (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Well, that info I'm adding is something new presented by the denialists. Is Etienne de Harven's position of HIV as an HERV. It was published last year and caused some disrupt among them, specially with the Perth Group. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons presented it. Well, they are not the most reliable source of the world, as I told you before, but it is a somehow acceptable source from the denialist guys. I think is a respectable info we can add, as at least, is sourced enough. Milikguay (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take relevant questions about articles to the article talk page, where others can comment. I do not comment on specific article questions on this talk page. Yobol (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is back at Talk:Aspartame controversy, I thought you might want to know..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. What's sad is he appears to have been counting down the days until his topic ban ran out. Yobol (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems, and bringing back dorway.com again. Ahh well... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, how many times does someone need to be pointed to WP:MEDRS before they actually look at it? How much time can one editor waste of everyone else on that page before they're not welcome anymore? Yobol (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to let you know that an article you may have contributed to is the subject of a discussion at Editor assistance requests. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to a citation of When did you stop beating your wife?! ;) — Scientizzle 20:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*shakes fist* Great minds...:P Yobol (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to eat plenty of organic stroopwafels while working on Wikipedia; they can cure any disease known to mankind.^{[citation needed]} Greetings from Amsterdam, Wasbeer 11:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC) p.s. Would you please be so kind to take a look at Adelle Davis, I've used the NPOV template on it because the article is extremely one-sided.[reply]

I can confirm that they are very tasty! JFW | T@lk 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, look tasty! Will take a closer look when I have more of a chance; these "diet" BLPs tend to be WP:COATRACKs. At first blush, these appears to be the case with, poor in-line citations to boot, making verification difficult. Sigh. Yobol (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, there appears to be some good biographical sources for her; will try to add them as I have a chance (there's about a 100 other articles I've been wanting to improve too). Yobol (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are awesome. Thanks a lot! I give you a lot of wikilove because you did an amazing job rewriting Adelle Davis! Greetings from Amsterdam, Wasbeer 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yobol (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Pls. explain why you are not able to enlist your objections against my text that you erased: [6]. Do you still hold a position that the text should be kept out? If yes, what is your reasoning? Stating "Numerous objections" without specifying a single one is hardly to be considered as valid evidence that my text is violating any of the WP rules. Should I interpret your refraining from objection specification in a way that your position has changed and you do not dispute my text anymore? Pls. explain. 2. Pls. also explain why you had erased the Wikipedia-sourced image. Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's something benign and not to do with my or Mastcell's prediction here. You're doing a good job, don't let the bastards get you down. Egg Centric 18:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, my user page has been redlinked for a while - never found a need to have one. Someone erroneously posted a message to it probably thinking it was my talk page. Just had it removed, is all. It won't be this easy to get rid of me. :) Yobol (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here. Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)--[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Looks like an important topic to be addressed, it will be interesting to see how ArbCom does with it. Yobol (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of an octopus, and the terms are vague so I'll be very impressed if they can draft something useful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be too. I would think a case with such a wide scope would be difficult to have specific findings useful enough to actually settle the current multitude of issues. Yobol (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Since it seems we agree to disagree, I have opened a dispute resolution. All I am asking for is that both sides of this are fairly represented. Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean that millions of other people who do are wrong. Let's just let anyone reading this entry understand that there are studies and books that support it and those that don't. Nutritiondr (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an edit war report involving you at EWN should you wish to remark or comment there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yobol you deleted a entry in the mercury article after a short time it was marked as obscure. It might be better to do a google scholar search and a google book search before deleting content. There is evidence that that part of the article contained valuable informations.