User talk:Alterrabe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Alterrabe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --TheNautilus 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have a lot of interest in Otto Warburg. At Orthomolecular medicine, I've moved your Otto Warburg sentence into the early History and requested a citation. Since he is not well known to many in English speaking countries, several selected links or references in the sentence might be useful.--TheNautilus 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Saw your talk on the Nautilus's page. There are pictures available of Warburg at the History of Medicine The Stroll 04:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) I have no idea of the picture you uploaded, as it not posted on the page. I just put the code in the the page for his picture. You need to place the name of the image that you uploaded in the code at the top of the page,for the image to appear. Most of the images at NLM are in the public domain. I have only come across one questionable photo, and I contacted the photographers family, and all they wanted was credit for the photo. NLM has clarified the status of the images since I did this a number of years ago. Next to each image is a link that you can see if there is a copyright or any resitrictions. Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain. Click on "View Authority" and it will tell you if there is a copyright. I just checked all his pictures and there is no copyright. However, the NLM requests that credit be given to the library for the image. Hope this helps. The Stroll 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)The Stroll 16:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Started a Dean Burk article, left a stub. have fun.--TheNautilus 12:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Burk

FYI - HHS / NIH Press release 1/24/2007

--News National Cancer Institute

Positive results of a phase III cancer clinical trial in an uncommon form of leukemia were released today. The results showed that adult patients with previously untreated acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who had standard chemotherapy to induce remission of their disease, and then received the chemotherapy drug arsenic trioxide to maintain remission, had a significantly better event-free survival (more patients free of leukemia) and better overall survival than those who received only standard chemotherapy. The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and was led by one of its Cooperative Clinical Trials Groups -- the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB).

NIH News Release The Stroll 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I need some help with the images on dean Burk's page. The Stroll 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meet Fyslee

Re [1],[2]. Meet User talk:Fyslee, chief Wikipedia proponent (AFAIK) in/of Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, NCAHF articles and their various "interests" here. A critic of most things chemical, unless specifically blessed by Steve, frequent epithets for LP. You just walked into Fys' pet POV fork from Hair analysis, which was blessed just the same way the Athenians persuaded Socrates to take that last drink, so he will definitely be watchful. The closer you get to QW favorites and references, the more objective he can get.

WP:RS is a policy about what counts, and what is desired, as Reliable Sources at Wikipedia. Orthomed has been seeded with three very negative references, two containing, directly counterfactual[3] or seriously misrepresented material, the other less so. Nevertheless, they are a testament to conventional "something", and Quackwatchers' might, that they are still so prominent despite a lack of peer review and being full of dated, biased, misrepresented material. I have not really pushed the issue to completion before, simply getting the worst POV out of new readers' faces (review the edit history, Talk & archives to see what I mean). Fyslee doesn't seem to understand that Barrett's hair analysis reviews did not account apples to apples on techniques for interlab comparisons and variations before penning his condemnation(s), widely flaunted everywhere by QW et al as "quackery".

Fyslee apparently is claiming that the journal you cited is not adequately peer reviewed for the article & its author. But he makes mistakes and has bad hair days. WP:V defines a source that someone can verify. When these things occur, read the quoted policies, consider others that might apply, and then look closely to decide whether you are being smoked or bluffed.--TheNautilus 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What I suggest to you both is WP:AGF. Shot info 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do assume good faith, even great faith, on the part of some other editors. This is a frank educational & familiarization discussion.

Alterrabe, the speedy PTC indicates this may be one of those "bad hair" (literally) weekends with Fys, you have to persist to exist here.--TheNautilus 15:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And I recommend WP:NPA. BTW, User "Fys" and "Fyslee" are two different users. I suggest you use the correct name to avoid any unfortunate errors. Shot info 01:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, was I talking to you (earlier, at the outset)? WP:NPA?? Jumping on an obvious contraction and familiarity as a source of error? Recognizing that a specific subject, hair related articles, might be drifting into contention? You are quite free to trawl elsewhere for business or stimulation.--TheNautilus 09:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did not realise that the behaviour was similar hey I'Naut :-) Shot info 01:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Otto_H_Warburg_with_Warburg_manometer.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Otto_H_Warburg_with_Warburg_manometer.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 00:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RS

Please review WP:V and WP:RS, which discusses who, and what, are reliable sources on wikipedia. Blogs (unless they are very specific blogs) and anecdotal evidence from celebrities, are not reliable sources. WLU (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OP

I've re-worked Orthomolecular psychiatry#Scientific support, have a look and see if there's any changes you want to make. Further discussion should take place on the talk page so other editors can see it. WLU (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Orthomolecular psychiatry

FYI, I've put in a request for comment on the section we were discussing in December, on the Orthomolecular psychiatry page. It's on Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry. WLU (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Alterrabe, and thanks for your email. By a '600 page book by a Nobel laureate' you must be referring to the book by Pauling and Hawkins (1973). Though P. could be the most prestigious person to entertain OM ideas, that book is over 30 years old, and a lot of medical work of that era is no longer relevant. I was hoping for something more recent that is also scholarly. Otherwise the OMP article risks looking like a historical review of what was formerly thought. Are there any books by Abram Hoffer that you consider scholarly? EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOS:CAPS and quotations

Hi,

Have a gander at MOS:CAPS - section titles shouldn't be capitalized beyond the first word, unless it's a proper name. Also, I generally don't quote from sources if I can avoid it, most readers probably aren't interested in the exact p value, and unless the actual quotation is somehow important or controversial, I don't think there's much reason to include it. I had thought there was a policy, but all I've found lately is Wikipedia:Quotations. Which I thought was deprecated. Knowing stuff like this makes it easier to integrate text without producing a jarring style and prevents most experienced editors from thinking you're a total noob - the hallmark of people's first 100 edits is usually the excessive use of capitals in section and page names. Thanks! WLU (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

Hi,

Note that you normally put barnstars on user's talk pages, and they move it to their user page - otherwise they may not notice it for a long time if they don't notice it popping up on their watchlist (unlike a talk page, you don't get a message if your user page is changed by someone else). Thought you might want to know. WLU (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, that's not really a minor edit. These are wikiquette points which don't make a substantive difference, but it does help you understand and work within the community better. WLU (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of edit countitis

Hi Alt, I noticed this post had the comment 'I find it tiresome to deal with editors in whose eyes I seem unable to do any right' and thought I'd provide my ¥2.17 (at current exchange rates - CAD$0.02). Orthomolecular psychiatry is not a mainstream medical approach. Further, it was historically rejected, for arguable reasons. This means that it unfortunately doesn't get much traffic in what is seen as the mainstream medical sources. This makes it hard to write about on wikipedia, because it misses out on what is seen as the premiere references - scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. It's also controversial. On top of that, there's obviously some merit to at least some aspects and subjects of the approach. This makes it a very confusing issue for wikipedians to deal with, particularly given the extra mile required by WP:MEDRS for medical claims - something OMP and OMM can almost never meet because it's been so thoroughly rejected by mainstream medicine.

I can see why you'd find the endless challenges tiresome (and irritating, which you're dealing with admirably). In part, this is an artefact of experience - I've more than 16K worth of edits, Ed has around 6K, Fyslee 13K, Nau <700, and I think each of those numbers correlates with familiarity with policy and practice. I'm not saying that I am right (in particular, my citation of OR/SYNTH, my biggest sticking point on the page to date) and that you should fold before our terrifying well of wisdom, I'm saying that editors tend to converge on certain interpretations of policies, which may or may not be supported by the actual wording. There's also something to be said for editing thousands of pages and getting a gut sense of how most good articles are worded (and more, how specific wording can be attempts to write around content policies). I think you've got a sincere group of editors working on a difficult subject, and you're one of those editors. Just because you're working with other editors who have a lot of edits doesn't make them (i.e. me) right, so let's keep working to try to get a good page that accurately describes the subject.

One advantage that I think the three higher-count editors have is experience dealing with both sides of this kind of issue - trying to add information that is continuously challenged, and trying to alter or remove information that doesn't seem to work on the page for a variety of reasons. I find it's given me sympathy for both sides and makes me want to try to come to a good consensus that's in line with policy and the MOS as a result.

You do an excellent job of editing and justifying your edits given your experience, far in excess of what one would assume given your low total number. I hope the frustration doesn't lead to a departure. WLU (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cade?

Hi,

Regards this remark, I'm reluctant to give tacit agreement when I'm not sure what I'm agreeing to! I checked through your contribs history for the recent past and couldn't see anything relating to those letters (an acronym? A name?) but sometimes I'm dense. There's a little bit of dyslexia going on as well. Could you clarify for me so I can comment if warranted, even to say 'go ahead'? If you wish to be discrete, I do check my e-mail and can use that to look into what you're saying, even if I dislike responding about wiki off wiki. WLU (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording

I was trying to reword the piece that contained the phrase "so small and the that with the odds of" into something that was a bit more clear and grammatical. The new version tries to make the same point but in language that is more approachable for a general reader. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wall Street Journal

Really? That's weird, I did a preliminary scan and the wording was identical for the first sentence. If the WSJ is more comprehensive, we should use that one for both citations since it's almost the exact same information (doubtless both wrote the same article from the same Associated Press source) unless there's info captured by the USAToday citation. I'll replace USAToday with the WSJ article. WLU (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The way the article is used in the page, it justifies a single sentence "One scientist investing clioquinol theorizes that the cause of Alzheimer's is a copper and zinc buildup in the brain, and pursued and investigated clioquinol in the belief that it removed copper from the brain". There was a second sentence, but Tim removed it. This sentence isn't even accurate according to either source as I read them, so I'll be re-wording. However, based on my re-wording, there's no real difference between using USAToday versus the WSJ. And while USAToday is linked to the magazine's website, the WSJ is a link of convenience to a plumbing company. Given this, I think the USAToday is the more credible link and a better one to have on the page, particularly given its use. Of course, it's possible I'm missing a key point to this, so feel free to re-edit. WLU (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Horrobin

Hey Alt, is this a slightly dry-British-wit way of saying that BLP doesn't apply because Horrobin's dead? It made me chuckle :) WLU (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ascorbate

That AMA guide to alternative medicine gives a broad overview of all the forms of "nutritional medicine", as they say "There seems to be a continuum of beliefs ranging from promoting dietary supplements beyond the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs), to elimination or addition of specific foods to "treat" specific conditions." Yes, ascorbate is a substrate of ascorbate peroxidases, that's covered in the specific articles on this vitamin. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all orthomolecular medicine involves grams of vitamins! That's the extreme fringe of the topic. Yes, I've heard of the warburg effect, but we now know that it is mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes that are the cause of cancer. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? The article on mutation explains the facts as I know them, but I'm sure that, to quote Mao, in alternative medicine "a thousand schools of thought contend". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pyroluria

Hi there, since this is not an accepted medical diagnosis, and no mutations associated with this hypothesised disorder have ever been identified, we can't describe this as a human genetic disease. Diseases such as gout and phenylketonuria, which are genuine diseases, can be treated to some extent by manipulating the diet, but this involves reducing the amounts of some nutrients and isn't anything like orthomolecular medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Genetic diseases seems unrelated to OM, since this is a form of treatment that does not use genetic tests to try to diagnose its patients as sufferers of genetic disorders. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

I agree completely, has somebody been insulting towards you? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, in your post here did you mean "orthoolecular" or "orthomolecular"? Is this a term I haven't come across before? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment

Your argument is quite convincing, this could have been an honest mistake or erring on the side of caution. I've removed that point. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Slashme (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OM papers

Hi there, As I said to ImperfectlyFormed. If you need a copy of any paper please e-mail me through my userpage and I should be able to get you a Pdf. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)