Goldstein123
Hi, Goldstein123. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Mootros (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Civility
editPlease don't accuse other editors of being prejudiced - see WP:CIVIL. Thanks. And for the record, I am not prejudiced. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I was not calling "you" prejudiced I was making the point that deliberately blocking them is illogical becuase so far you havent stated exactly which rules the papers are breaking and as I have pointed out there are other papers which are of a lesser quality which ARE on the page, so it seems very much "one rule for one and one rule for another" which isnt what wiki is about, we cannot cherry pick, we are not here to decide what is and isnt allowed, all we can try and do it make a balanced page, and I am sure we are all would like that, currently the page is NOT balanced. Goldstein123 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have stated the reasons multiple times. And if there are lower quality studies on the page, please point them out - I would like to remove them! --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
with respect u havent pointed out which exact points they fail on MEDRS....I have read MEDRS many times and cant see that lerner fails on any! according to MEDRS lerner SHOULD be included...I cant see the problem here Goldstein123 (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- I gave 4 specific points in the CFS treatment talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome
editPlease don't remove comments from other users from talk pages, like you did on Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. It is a violation of WP:TPO. Providing a link to an outside discussion of edits on an article is relevant for the talk page of that article. If you still have a problem with that link, discuss it with the editor that posted it or discuss it on the talk page of the article, but don't remove it again please. Fram (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Golstein123 / IP 81.153.136.129, Sw is acting within WP policies and guidelines. You are not. When editors revert your edits, look at the edit history [1] to see why. In this case you are breaching WP:TPO. This is an absolute no-no. If you are also IP 81.153.136.129, then you are also breaching WP:3RR, another absolute no-no. Whatever tensions there are between editors, the whole WP system only works if we follow the policies and guidelines laid down. You will get absolutely no support from the regular WP editors if you behave this way, and you may ultimately be banned. Read the rule-book and follow it! -- TerryE (talk) 13:52, 20 April
2010 (UTC)
Sorry but do you not see sciencewatcher has a long history of this, they post on various message boards with an anti cfs agenda, and no one picks them up on is, take a look back in the archive and you will see sciencewatchers name mentioned MANY times, they are publishing that forum post in an attempt to discredit the edit, for all we know science watcher posted it themselves! its irrelevent to the discussion were having about SCIENCE....remember we are here to talk about science not flame wars which is what sciencewather appears to have done in the past and is currently doing Goldstein123 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Look G123, I have been editing with and across sw for over 3 years. I know his good and bad points a lot more than you do, as he does mine. Learn the rules; follow the rules or your account will not last long. -- TerryE (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
terryE CEASE AND DESIST bullying behaviour or you will be reported to wikipedia, Goldstein123 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Listen, Goldstein123. Both TerryE and I are CFS PATIENTS and the main reason we edit these pages is to HELP CFS PATIENTS. It doesn't help patients to have bad science in these pages, just because it fits some viewpoint you have about the illness. My aim, and Terry's, is to give patients the best information available, which for wikipedia means finding the most scientifically rigorous studies published in reliable sources. Both of us are happy to discuss the science with you, but we (and nobody else on wikipedia) is going to put up with this political BS of "lets put this crappy science onto wikipedia simply because it bolsters the position that CFS is a physical illness" which you appear to be engaged in. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
please dont play that game...the cfs page currently is full of one sided biased information, if you think lerner has bad science, then please go to medical school and get a lifetime of treating patients before you insult a very well respected doctor, the current cfs page is not balanced and totally goes against what wikipedia is about...sciencewatcher if you really wanted to help patients you wouldnt run this cfs page like a little dictator, it seems this cfs page is held account to a handful of editors, it is shocking. Goldstein123 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Are you a medical doctor yourself? The main problem with the Lerner study is the small size. You will see he randomly split the group into two subgroups, but the two groups were very different (one had an average titer twice the other group!) That's the problem with small trials - a 'positive' results doesn't necessarily mean that the treatment has actually been successful, it could just be a statistical anomaly. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)